Waters v. Blackshear
Citation | 412 Mass. 589,591 N.E.2d 184 |
Parties | Maurice WATERS 1 et al. 2 v. Timothy BLACKSHEAR. |
Decision Date | 07 May 1992 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Katherine L. Lamondia, Springfield, for plaintiffs.
Patricia A. Bobba, Springfield, for defendant.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
On June 6, 1987, the minor defendant placed a firecracker in the left sneaker of the unsuspecting minor plaintiff Maurice Waters and lit the firecracker. Maurice, who was then seven years old, sustained burn injuries. The defendant, also a minor, was somewhat older than Maurice. 3 The defendant had been lighting firecrackers for about ten minutes before the incident, not holding them but tossing them on the ground and watching them ignite, jump, and spin.
Maurice and his mother now seek recovery in this action solely on the theory that the minor defendant was negligent. 4 The judge instructed the jury, in terms that are not challenged on appeal, that the plaintiffs could recover only if the defendant's act was not intentional or purposeful and was negligent. The jury found for the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered accordingly. The trial judge then allowed the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that the evidence showed intentional and not negligent conduct. We allowed the plaintiffs' application for direct appellate review and now affirm the judgment for the defendant.
We start with the established principle that intentional conduct cannot be negligent conduct and that negligent conduct cannot be intentional conduct. Sabatinelli v. Butler, 363 Mass. 565, 567, 296 N.E.2d 190 (1973). The only evidence of any conduct of the defendant on which liability could be based, on any theory, is that the defendant intentionally put a firecracker in one of Maurice's sneakers and lit the firecracker.
The defendant's conduct was a battery, an intentional tort. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965) (); 1 F.V. Harper, F. James, Jr., O.S. Gray, Torts § 3.3, at 272-273 (2d ed. 1986) ( ; W.L. Prosser & W.P. Keeton Torts, § 9, at 41 (5th ed. 1984) ().
The intentional placing of the firecracker in Maurice's sneaker and the intentional lighting of the firecracker brought about a harmful contact that the defendant intended. The defendant may not have intended to cause the injuries that Maurice sustained. The defendant may not have understood the seriousness of his conduct and all the harm that might result from it. These facts are not significant, however, in determining whether the defendant committed a battery. See Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149, 155, 526 P.2d 304 (1974) (). The only permissible conclusion on the uncontroverted facts is that the defendant intended an unpermitted contact. If the defendant were an adult, we would have no hesitancy in ruling, as a matter of law, that lighting a firecracker in Maurice's sneaker was an act that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rogers v. Cofield
...cause a harmful or offensive contact; and (2) for a harmful or offensive contact to directly or indirectly result.38 Waters v.Blackshear, 591 N.E.2d 184, 185 (Mass. 1992). Although a finding of unreasonable force under the Fourth Amendment controls the determination of the reasonableness of......
-
Liu v. Striuli
..."intentional conduct cannot be negligent conduct and that negligent conduct cannot be intentional conduct." Waters v. Blackshear, 412 Mass. 589, 591 N.E.2d 184, 185 (Mass.1992); see Haines v. Fisher, 82 F.3d 1503, 1510 (10th Cir.1996) (applying Wyoming law) (upholding trial court's refusal ......
-
Limone v. U.S.
...contact with the plaintiff, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and a harmful contact resulted. See Waters v. Blackshear, 412 Mass. 589, 590, 591 N.E.2d 184 (1992). An assault action requires proof of an attempted battery or putting another in fear of an imminent threatened battery......
-
Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins.
...Co. v. Schuss, 221 Conn. 768, 607 A.2d 418, 422-23 (1992); Landry v. Leonard, 720 A.2d 907, 910-11 (Me.1998); Waters v. Blackshear, 412 Mass. 589, 591 N.E.2d 184, 185 (1992); Miller v. Kruetz, 643 S.W.2d 310, 313 (Mo.Ct. App.1982); Lail v. Woods, 36 N.C.App. 590, 244 S.E.2d 500, 502, review......