## Facts

- A nurse and a physician worked in the same medical office and had a history of joking interactions.
- During a lunch-hour conversation in a lighthearted work setting, the nurse joked about the physician using a snowblower.
- The physician responded and made contact with the back of the nurse’s neck; defense witnesses described it as a playful tap consistent with prior interactions.
- The nurse described the contact as a forceful strike that caused immediate pain and symptoms, followed by emergency-room treatment and later medical care including surgery.
- Evidence showed the nurse had preexisting neck problems, creating a dispute over whether the contact caused the alleged injuries.
- The parties agreed the physician had previously tapped the nurse playfully on several occasions without her objection.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required judgment for the nurse on civil battery, or instead permitted a jury finding of implied consent to the contact.
2. Whether causation of the nurse’s claimed injuries was established as a matter of law, or whether conflicting evidence and preexisting conditions created a jury question.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment and a directed verdict, submitting consent and causation to the jury, or instructing the jury on battery-related issues.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the physician after a jury verdict for the defense.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence most favorably to the physician, a reasonable jury could find either implied consent to the contact or that the contact did not cause the nurse’s injuries.
- The trial court properly denied the nurse’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict because material factual disputes existed on consent and causation.
- The court upheld submission of the battery claim (including consent and causation questions) to the jury and found no reversible instructional error.
- The verdict was not set aside because competent evidence supported the jury’s defense verdict and it was not clearly wrong.

## Legal Principles

- Civil battery requires proof of an unconsented contact with another, or the actual infliction of an unconsented injury.
- Consent is a defense to battery and may be express or implied from conduct, inaction, surrounding circumstances, and the parties’ relationship.
- Denial of a directed verdict is reviewed by viewing evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party; if reasonable minds can differ on a material fact, the issue is for the jury.
- A jury verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility conflicts when competent evidence supports the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict because evidence of prior similar workplace interactions supported a possible finding of implied consent, and conflicting testimony and preexisting conditions supported a possible finding of no causation, making both issues appropriate for jury resolution.


Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472, 827 N.W.2d 248 (Neb. 2013)