## Facts

- Moses Taylor, an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil action alleging Staff Lieutenant George Barwick committed a common-law battery.
- Taylor alleged that as he approached or entered the dining hall, Barwick poked him on the back with a tree branch or stick.
- Taylor claimed the touching was intentional and insulting and alleged Barwick laughed and made derisive remarks about Taylor’s hairstyle.
- Barwick admitted there was contact with a stick but asserted it was accidental: he saw a stick on the hallway floor outside the dining hall, bent to pick it up, and while standing up someone called his name; when he turned, the stick brushed against Taylor.
- Barwick stated he immediately apologized to Taylor for the inadvertent contact.
- Taylor pursued the prison grievance process and also named other correctional officials based on their handling of his complaint.
- Before this decision, the court disposed of claims against other officials, leaving only the battery claim against Barwick.
- Several years after the incident, Taylor had not produced medical proof of physical injury or other competent evidence of compensable harm from the contact.
- Taylor and Barwick filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining battery claim and on the scope of available damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ competing accounts created a genuine dispute of material fact on intent and offensiveness such that neither side was entitled to summary judgment on liability for battery.
2. Whether a battery claim may proceed without proof of actual injury, and, if so, whether the lack of proof of injury limits the plaintiff to nominal damages.
3. Whether, on this record, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment barring compensatory and punitive damages.

## Decision

- Taylor’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Barwick’s motion for summary judgment was denied to the extent it sought judgment on the battery claim itself because intent and the nature of the contact were disputed.
- Barwick’s motion was granted in part on damages: Taylor was barred from recovering compensatory damages because he produced no evidence of physical or mental injury.
- Barwick’s motion was also granted in part as to punitive damages; the court ruled punitive damages were not available on these facts and in the absence of an award of compensatory damages.
- The case could proceed, if at all, only as a “technical” battery claim with recovery limited to nominal damages.

## Legal Principles

- Battery is an intentional, unpermitted harmful or offensive contact with another person.
- A contact is “offensive” if it would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity; the standard is the ordinary person, not someone unusually sensitive.
- Proof of actual physical harm is not an element of battery; an unpermitted offensive touching may be actionable even without injury.
- When no actual injury is shown, recovery for battery is generally limited to nominal damages.
- Compensatory damages require proof of actual loss or injury; a plaintiff who produces no evidence of compensable harm cannot recover compensatory damages.
- Punitive damages are not available as a matter of law on this record, particularly where compensatory damages are unavailable and the evidence does not support the type of misconduct required for punitive relief.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record shows genuine disputes of material fact, including disputes about intent.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Superior Court denied both sides’ motions on battery liability because a factfinder had to decide whether Barwick intentionally poked Taylor or accidentally brushed him while picking up a stick, but it granted partial summary judgment limiting Taylor’s possible recovery to nominal damages only, barring compensatory and punitive damages due to the absence of proof of injury and the governing limits on punitive relief.


Taylor v. Barwick, 1997 WL 527970 (1997)