## Facts

- Tracy D. Wagner was attacked from behind while standing in a customer service line at a K‑Mart in American Fork, Utah.
- Sam Giese, a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development Center (USDC), took her by the head and hair, threw her to the ground, and caused serious bodily injury.
- State employees had brought Giese to the store as part of his treatment program and were supervising him.
- Giese had a history of violent conduct and posed a danger to the public if not properly supervised.
- The Wagners sued the State and related agencies, alleging negligent failure to properly supervise Giese.
- The State moved to dismiss under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting governmental immunity because the injury arose out of battery under the then-applicable Governmental Immunity Act.
- The trial court dismissed, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Wagner did not claim the contact was involuntary; she argued Giese lacked mental capacity to form the intent required for battery.

## Issues

1. Whether a mentally disabled person who allegedly cannot understand the wrongfulness or harmful character of his act can commit a civil battery where battery requires intent.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s injuries “arose out of” a battery so that the State retained immunity from suit under the Governmental Immunity Act, despite the complaint being styled as negligence.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court held Giese’s conduct constituted a battery as a matter of law.
- The court concluded the relevant intent for battery is intent to cause contact, not intent to cause harm or an understanding that the act is wrongful.
- Because the injuries arose out of battery, the State retained immunity under Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(2) (1997), and the negligence framing did not avoid the immunity bar.

## Legal Principles

- Civil battery requires intent to cause the bodily contact that occurs; it does not require intent to injure, nor awareness that the contact is legally or morally wrongful.
- Mental disability does not negate battery’s intent element where the actor’s contact is volitional and purposeful rather than reflexive or non-volitional.
- Under the Governmental Immunity Act provision at issue, the State retains immunity for claims seeking recovery for injuries “arising out of” battery, even when plaintiffs plead negligent supervision as the theory of liability.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts accept well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but dismissal is proper when immunity applies as a matter of law based on the nature of the underlying tort.

## Conclusion

The court held that purposeful contact by a mentally disabled actor can satisfy the intent element of civil battery, and that injuries resulting from such an attack arise out of battery for governmental-immunity purposes, requiring dismissal of negligence claims against the State.


Wagner v. State, 122 P.3d 599 (Utah 2005)