Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. Case Brief **DO NOT COPY**

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.

 Supreme Court of Texas, 1967

Facts:  The plaintiff visited a Carrousel Motor Hotel for a meeting and luncheon provided by his employer. The luncheon took place in the Brass Ring Club, an eatery located in the Motor Hotel. While standing in line for a buffet that he had RSVP’d to, the plaintiff had his plate snatched away in a loud and offensive manner. The plate was taken while Flynn, a manager for the defendant, shouted that Fisher, “a Negro, could not be served in the club.” The plaintiff was embarrassed by Flynn’s actions, especially as they were in front of his coworkers.

Procedural History:  The 61^st District Court found that Flynn subjected the plaintiff to undue humiliation and indignity, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $400 in actual damages and $500 in exemplary damages. The trial court then rendered the judgement for the defendant. The Waco Court of Appeals held that there was no assault because the defendant did not touch the plaintiff, and no evidence of fear of physical contact, affirming the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower decisions, reinstating the jury’s verdict; awarding the plaintiff $900 with interest.

Issue Presented: Was there evidence that an actionable battery was committed, and if so, should the corporate defendants respond in exemplary and actual damages for Flynn’s conduct?

Decision:  Yes, there was evidence to suggest beyond a doubt that actionable battery was committed in the loud and reckless snatching of the plate, and the defendants owed actual and exemplary damages as they were reckless in employing Flynn.

Holding:  The snatching of an object held by an individual constitutes battery, as long as it is done in a manner offensive to the individual, even if there was no contact with said individual.

Reasoning:  Battery can be reasonably interpreted to include intentional and offensive snatching of a possession because it was offensive to the plaintiff and caused mental harm. Even if the harm is not visible as physical harm, it can still be considered when deciding damages.

Precedents:  Morgan v. Loyacomo (1941), stands for the proposition that assault and battery does not necessitate the touching of the body, forcibly taking or hitting an item that the plaintiff holds can suffice.   

            King v. McGuff (1950) stands for the proposition that an employer is responsible for their employee’s action if they authorize it; the employee is unfit and the company is being reckless in the continued employment; the employee is a manager, or if the manager authorized the act.

Arguments Made:

Plaintiff:  The plaintiff argued that Flynn’s actions caused severe mental distress through battery when he snatched the plate and shouted that the defendant was unfit to be served. They argued that although Flynn never touched the plaintiff, the fact that he made contact with an object that the plaintiff was holding was enough to be considered battery.

Defendant:  The defendant argued that because Flynn never made contact with the plaintiff, and because the employer never condoned the actions of Flynn, the case should be dismissed.

Concurrence/Dissent:  None.

Policy Discussion & Implications:  The decision in the case benefits society because it allows for greater precedent about assault of a person’s dignity and the expansion of employer liability. It also expands the definition of the body in relation to battery to items that the individual may be holding or wearing at the time. However, the decision in this case can be detrimental to society because it could lead judges to expand the definition of battery further, and away from the original intent of the law. Overall, the decision could lead to a more comprehensive definition of assault and battery, but restraint should be applied so that the definition does not exceed the reasonable idea of assault and battery.