## Facts

- Meredith A. Paul and Paul Holbrook were co-employees at Professional Medical Products, Inc. (PMP); Holbrook was not Paul’s supervisor.
- Paul alleged Holbrook repeatedly made sexual comments at work, including requests that she wear revealing clothing and suggestions of sexual relations.
- Paul alleged two incidents in which Holbrook approached her from behind while she was working and attempted to massage her shoulders.
- Paul immediately pulled away and told Holbrook to stop on each occasion; he stopped and left.
- After Paul complained to management, Paul and Holbrook were no longer scheduled on the same shifts, and the conduct ended.
- Paul sued Holbrook and PMP for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Holbrook and PMP on all claims, treating the contact as mere “casual touching” and finding insufficient evidence of intent for battery.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury could reasonably find that Holbrook committed battery by intentionally attempting to make an offensive contact (shoulder “massage” from behind) in the context of prior sexual comments, making summary judgment improper.
2. Whether summary judgment was properly entered on Paul’s remaining tort claims against Holbrook and PMP.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on all claims except the battery claim against Holbrook.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the battery claim against Holbrook and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
- The court held the record created genuine issues of material fact as to whether the contact was offensive and whether Holbrook intended the contact.

## Legal Principles

- Battery is the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent.
- Battery protects personal integrity; an intentional, non-injurious contact may be actionable if it is offensive, and nominal damages may be available even without physical injury.
- Intent to cause physical harm is not required for battery; intent focuses on the intentional nature of the contact (or intent to cause apprehension of it).
- Intent is commonly proved by surrounding circumstances rather than direct evidence.
- Whether contact is “offensive” may present a fact question when reasonable fact-finders could differ, particularly where workplace context and prior sexualized conduct bear on how the contact would be understood.

## Conclusion

The court held that a reasonable jury could find Holbrook’s shoulder-massage attempts, viewed with his prior sexual comments and the manner of contact, to be intentional and offensive, so summary judgment was improper on battery; it otherwise left intact the trial court’s summary judgment for defendants on Paul’s remaining claims.


Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1997)