## Facts

- Sherry Lynn Muniz worked as a shift supervisor and professional caregiver at a personal care facility.
- Helen Everly, an 83-year-old resident, had Alzheimer’s-type dementia and exhibited agitation and occasional aggression after admission.
- While Muniz attempted to change Everly’s adult diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room.
- A physician examined Everly the next day and diagnosed progressive dementia affecting memory, impulse control, and judgment.
- Muniz sued for assault and battery against Everly (through Everly’s estate representative).

## Issues

1. Whether battery requires proof that the defendant intended not only the contact, but also that the contact be harmful or offensive.
2. Whether mental deficiency precludes liability for battery or instead is evidence relevant to whether the defendant formed the required intent.
3. Whether an appellate court may impose battery liability by treating volitional contact alone as sufficient, despite a jury verdict finding lack of intent.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and directed reinstatement of the defense verdict.
- The court held battery requires proof that the actor intended the act and intended it to result in harmful or offensive contact (dual intent).
- Mental illness is not an affirmative defense to an intentional tort, but it may be considered among the circumstances bearing on whether the actor actually formed the required intent.
- Because the jury found Everly lacked the requisite intent, Muniz could not recover for battery.

## Legal Principles

- Battery requires (1) intent to commit the act causing contact and (2) intent that the contact be harmful or offensive; the actor need not intend the resulting harm’s extent.
- An actor may be liable for battery even if reasons or motives are irrational, so long as the required intent is proven.
- Mental deficiency does not categorically bar intentional-tort liability, but it is relevant evidence on the factual question of intent.
- Intent is typically a jury question, and appellate courts should not replace a properly instructed jury’s intent determination with a rule treating contact alone as sufficient.

## Conclusion

The court adopted a dual-intent standard for battery and held that, although mental deficiency does not automatically excuse intentional torts, it may negate the required intent; the jury’s finding that the cognitively impaired defendant lacked intent to cause harmful or offensive contact required judgment for the defendant.


White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000)