## Facts

- Victorie A. Picard brought her mother’s car to an automobile dealership for a repair and inspection; the dealership reported the car failed inspection due to bad brakes.
- Picard obtained a second inspection at another garage, where the car passed.
- After Picard contacted a local television consumer reporter about the conflicting inspections, the dealership asked the second garage to reinspect the car and remove the inspection sticker.
- At the scheduled reinspection at the second garage, dealership employee Jesse Silvia inspected the brakes while Picard stood nearby; Picard’s goddaughter waited in the office area separated by glass.
- Picard attempted to photograph Silvia during the reinspection to document the event.
- Picard testified Silvia lunged toward her and spun her around, causing her to fear imminent harm and later claim back injury.
- Silvia testified he merely pointed a finger at Picard and touched the lens of her camera while asking why she was taking his picture.
- A jury found Silvia liable for assault and battery and awarded $60,346 in compensatory damages and $6,350 in punitive damages, plus interest and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Silvia committed assault by placing Picard in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm.
2. Whether Silvia’s intentional contact with the camera Picard was holding constituted a battery as an offensive, unconsented contact with her person.
3. Whether the compensatory and punitive damages awards were excessive based on the evidence of injury and culpability.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment as to liability for assault and battery.
- The court held that Silvia’s conduct could constitute assault because a threatening physical act that creates reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm is sufficient, even without actual injury.
- The court held that Silvia’s intentional touching of the camera Picard was holding could constitute battery because intentional, offensive contact with an object connected to the person is treated as contact with the person.
- The court vacated both compensatory and punitive damages as excessive and remanded for a new trial limited to damages.

## Legal Principles

- Assault is a threatening physical act that places another in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm; actual injury is not required.
- Battery is an intentional act that causes offensive or nonconsensual contact with another; intent to injure is not required, only intent to make the unpermitted contact.
- Under the “extended personality” doctrine, intentional contact with an object closely connected to the person (including an object held in the hand) may satisfy the contact element of battery.
- An appellate court may affirm liability while vacating damages and ordering a new trial on damages when the award is not supported by adequate evidence.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the jury’s findings that threatening conduct created a reasonable fear of imminent harm (assault) and that intentional contact with a camera in the plaintiff’s hands was legally equivalent to contact with her person (battery), but it set aside the compensatory and punitive awards as excessive and ordered a new trial confined to damages.


Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 654 A.2d 690 (R.I. 1995)