Facts
- Florence A. McGuire, a registered nurse, was hired as a private attendant to care for Dorothy B. Almy, who was mentally ill and under long-term nursing supervision.
- McGuire worked continuous “twenty-four hour duty” and routinely kept Almy locked in her room when not directly supervising her.
- Over approximately fourteen months, Almy experienced episodes of hostility and violence, including threats toward McGuire and property destruction; at times others were needed to subdue her.
- During a violent episode, Almy caused a disturbance in her room and threatened to kill McGuire and a maid if they entered.
- McGuire, the maid, and a relative sought to remove broken items to prevent Almy from harming herself.
- When McGuire approached to disarm Almy—who was holding a raised furniture leg as if to strike—Almy struck McGuire, injuring her.
- McGuire sued in tort for assault and battery.
Issues
- Whether an insane person is liable for battery when the evidence permits a finding that she intended the physical act of striking, even if her mental illness affected her understanding or motivation.
- Whether, as a matter of law, a nurse caring for a mentally ill patient with known violent tendencies assumes the risk of being assaulted, barring recovery for battery.
Decision
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed judgment for McGuire on a jury verdict.
- The court held that an insane person is liable for intentional torts where she intentionally performs the harmful physical act under circumstances that would create liability for a sane person.
- The evidence permitted a jury finding that Almy was capable of forming, and did form, an intent to strike and injure McGuire, and acted on that intent.
- The court held that McGuire’s knowledge of Almy’s condition did not require a directed verdict on assumption of risk; the jury could find McGuire had not voluntarily accepted the specific risk of this assault while attempting to disarm Almy.
Legal Principles
- An insane person who intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact is liable for battery in the same circumstances as a sane person if she intended the physical act that produced the contact.
- In determining intent for battery, the law does not further examine the actor’s particular delusions or mental abnormalities to excuse the conduct once intent to do the act is found.
- A caregiver’s general awareness that a patient may become violent does not, by itself, establish assumption of risk as a matter of law; whether the caregiver voluntarily accepted the specific risk of the assault is ordinarily for the factfinder.
Conclusion
The court upheld liability for battery because the jury could find that the mentally ill defendant intended and carried out the act of striking, and it rejected a categorical rule that a nurse caring for a violent patient necessarily assumes the risk of being assaulted.