Torts Chapter II Intentional Interference with Person or Property 1.

Intent

McGuire v. Almy
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1937. 297 Mass. 323, 8 N.E.2d 760. Justice Qua Facts:

McGuire () was employed as a caregiver for Almy (), a mentally ill but physically fit woman. During one of shifts, caused a loud disturbance and told she would kill her if she entered her room. entered the room anyway, was physically attacked by , and sued for assault and battery. sued and the jury entered a verdict in s favor and the court entered judgment in s favor and awarded damages for tort assault and battery Whether the trial court err in refusing to direct a verdict for for assault and battery because was insane when she attacked ? No. An insane person is judged by the same standards as a normal person. The intent to do the act is the key to a battery and if an insane person can form an intent to do an act he can be liable. The insane person must be capable of forming that intent and must have actually acted upon that intent. The fact that an insane person cannot control his acts is not a defense. In order to be liable for intentionally damaging another, an insane person must have been capable of the same level of intent and have possessed the same level of intent as would give rise to liability for a sane person.

Procedural History:

Issue(s):

Holding(s) and Rules of Law

Reasoning:

Disposition:

Affirmed.

Conclusion:

The insane are liable for their torts to the same extent as the sane, except for certain torts requiring malice of which they are incapable.

Questions/Comments: