Wallace v. Rosen
Decision Date | 22 March 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 49A02-0106-CV-419.,49A02-0106-CV-419. |
Citation | 765 N.E.2d 192 |
Parties | Mable WALLACE, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Harriet ROSEN and Indianapolis Public Schools, Appellees-Defendants. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Elaine Parran Boyd, Lee, Burns & Cossell, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Kevin C. Schiferl, Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Allison S. Avery, Locke Reynolds LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
Mable Wallace appeals the jury verdict in favor of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and Harriet Rosen, a teacher for IPS. On appeal, Wallace raises the following issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give her tendered jury instruction regarding battery. II. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the defense of incurred risk.
We affirm.
In 1994, Rosen was a teacher at Northwest High School in Indianapolis. On April 22, 1994, the high school had a fire drill while classes were in session. The drill was not previously announced to the teachers and occurred just one week after a fire was extinguished in a bathroom near Rosen's classroom.
On the day the alarm sounded, Wallace was at the high school delivering homework to her daughter Lalaya. Because Wallace was recovering from foot surgery and Lalaya's class was on the second floor, Lalaya's boyfriend Eric Fuqua accompanied Wallace up the stairs. Wallace and Fuqua were near the top of the staircase when they saw Lalaya and began to speak with her. Jamie Arnold, a student who knew Lalaya and her mother, joined the conversation. The alarm then sounded and students began filing down the stairs while Wallace took a step or two up the stairs to the second floor landing.
In response to the alarm, Rosen escorted her class to the designated stairway and noticed three or four people talking together at the top of the stairway and blocking the students' exit. Rosen did not recognize any of the individuals but approached "telling everybody to move it." Transcript at 35. Wallace, with her back to Rosen, was unable to hear Rosen over the noise of the alarm and Rosen had to touch her on the back to get her attention. Id. at 259. Rosen then told Wallace, "you've got to get moving because this is a fire drill." Id. 259.
At trial, Wallace testified that Rosen pushed her down the stairs. Id. at 128. Rosen denied pushing Wallace and testified that Wallace had not fallen, but rather had made her way down the stairs unassisted and without losing her balance. Id. at 265-66.
At the close of the trial, Wallace tendered an instruction concerning civil battery. Over Wallace's objection, the court refused to read the instruction to the jury.1 IPS and Rosen tendered an instruction concerning the defense of incurred risk on the basis that Wallace had continued up the stairs after hearing the alarm, had stopped at the landing to talk, and had blocked the students' exit. Over Wallace's objection, the court gave the incurred risk instruction. The jury found in favor of IPS and Rosen, and Wallace now appeals.
Wallace claims that the trial court erred both in refusing to give the tendered jury instruction concerning battery and in giving the instruction concerning incurred risk as a defense to a claim of negligence. Instruction of the jury is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 737 N.E.2d 393, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Our review of a trial court's decisions is highly deferential, and we will not disturb the court's judgment absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.
A party is normally entitled to have a tendered instruction read to the jury. Marshall v. Clark Equip. Co., 680 N.E.2d 1102, 1104 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied (1998); Morris v. K-Mart, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1147, 1148 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993),trans. denied (1994). In determining whether the trial court erroneously refused a tendered instruction, we consider: (1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions. Smock Materials Handling Co., Inc. v. Kerr, 719 N.E.2d 396, 402 (Ind.Ct.App.1999); Stamper v. Hyundai Motor Co., 699 N.E.2d 678, 688 (Ind.Ct.App.1998),trans. denied. An instruction is properly rejected if it would tend to mislead or confuse the jury. Barnard v. Himes, 719 N.E.2d 862, 868 (Ind. Ct.App.1999),trans. denied. Further, "`[e]ven if the instruction is a correct statement of the law, is supported by the evidence, and is not covered by the other instructions, we will not reverse unless the failure to give the instruction substantially and adversely affects the rights of the complaining party so as to quite likely have affected the result.'" Id. (quoting Miller v. Ryan, 706 N.E.2d 244, 248 (Ind. Ct.App.1999),trans. denied).
Wallace first argues that it was error for the trial court to refuse to give the jury the following tendered instruction pertaining to battery:
Wallace argues that the omission of the instruction was error because the instruction was an accurate statement of the law, was supported by the evidence, and was not covered by any other instruction read to the jury. Id. at 6. Appellees respond that the instruction was properly omitted because there was no evidence presented that supported a battery instruction. Id. at 3.
We agree with Appellees. The Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction for the intentional tort of civil battery is as follows: "A battery is the knowing or intentional touching of a person against [his] [her] will in a rude, insolent, or angry manner." 2 Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil) 31.03 (2d ed. Revised 2001).2 Battery is an intentional tort. Boruff v. Jesseph, 576 N.E.2d 1297, 1300 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). In discussing intent, Professors Prosser and Keeton made the following comments:
W. PAGE KEETON et al., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS, § 8, at 33, 36-37 (5th ed. 1984) (footnotes omitted).
Wallace, Lalaya, and Fuqua testified that Rosen touched Wallace on the back causing her to fall down the stairs and injure herself. For battery to be an appropriate instruction, the evidence had to support an inference not only that Rosen intentionally touched Wallace, but that she did so in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, i.e., that she intended to invade Wallace's interests in a way that the law forbids.
Professors Prosser and Keeton also made the following observations about the intentional tort of battery and the character of the defendant's action:
KEETON et al., § 9, at 42 (emphasis added).
During the trial, Wallace gave the following testimony concerning the manner in which Rosen touched her:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Betz v. Satteson
...perpetrated outside those bounds, whether consent is assumed also depends upon who is making the contact.").318 Wallace v. Rosen, 765 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).319 Id. at 198.320 Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 15-1455 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 4059645, at *2 (D.N.J. July 27, 20......
-
Estate of Williams v. Ind. State Police
...also correctly recognize that contributory negligence is not a defense to intentional torts, such as battery. See Wallace v. Rosen, 765 N.E.2d 192, 199 n. 4 (Ind.App.2002) (“[C]ontributory negligence is not a defense to an intentional tort.”).As the Court did with Plaintiffs' excessive forc......
-
Penn Harris Madison School Corp. v. Howard
...Comparative Fault Act ("the Act") does not apply to governmental entities like public schools and its employees. Wallace v. Rosen, 765 N.E.2d 192, 200 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Therefore, tort claims against such defendants are subject to the common law principles of negligence. Id. While the Act ......
-
Franciose v. Jones
...939, 944 (Ind.2001)). We look to whether the incorrect instruction likely affected the result of the proceeding. Wallace v. Rosen, 765 N.E.2d 192, 196 (Ind.Ct. App.2002). Here, the trial court instructed the jury that "[a] rescuer is one who undertakes physical activity in a reasonable atte......
-
Free Speech on Campus: Countering the Climate of Fear
...believe is fair—one that evolves along with changing societal norms and conventionally accepted morality. 100. See Wallace v. Rosen, 765 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). 101. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 13 (AM. L. INST. 1965). 102. See Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.......
-
The Alien Tort Statute and Corporate Liability: Rebutting the Extraterritorial Presumption Post-kiobel
...See, e.g., Cole v. Turner, 6 Mod. 149 (1704) (the seminal case establishing common law assault and battery); see also Wallace v. Rosen, 765 N.E.2d 192, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (outlining intent element of battery).113. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (2012).114. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012). An alien may easi......