Utah Personal Injury Attorney Jake Gunter. Call/TXT (801) 373-6345 for a Free Consult.

Civil Assault & Battery Tort Cases in Utah

When you think personal injury, you think car accidents, negligence and slip n falls. Mostly you think reckless, careless conduct that endangers the public, hurting people.

Types of Utah Intentional Torts

There is another part of “Tort” cases called “Intentional Torts.” Some of these are false light, invasion of privacy, defamation, slander, libel, conversion and trespass to name a few. “Intentional Torts” are still private wrongs between people, but are not accidental, but intentional or knowing.

The reason you don’t see intentional torts as much as negligence torts is because there is no insurance company behind the scenes to pay the damages bill. If a homeless person intentionally assaults you, you have a lawsuit for money damages. But good luck collecting the judgement. Any ultimate money damages judgment will be a worthless piece of paper. It is just the reality of private civil ligation.

Civil Intentional Battery in Utah

When you hit someone, or threaten to hit someone, you are responsible for all the harms and damages that you cause.

Intentional Battery

Utah law to recover damages for assault or battery, the injured party plaintiff must prove:

(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and

(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965). Wagner v. State, 2005 UT 54.

Common Assault and Batteries in Utah.

Fights. Your classic bar fights, school fights, or other altercations qualify as batteries in Utah. If it is a bar fight, you always want to look into a possible Dramshop violation or overserving a patron.

Attacks using a car, motor vehicle. You don’t just have to use your hands to constitute battery. Any use of a car, motor vehicle or even a bicycle to intentionally cause offensive or harmful contact is battery.

Attacks with guns, knives, bats, etc. All attacks involving weapons constitute civil battery in Utah.

Any intentional attempt to do harm or offensive contact with another without their consent. Just because you didn’t touch the other person with the knife or bat. Or swung but missed or threatened to cause a harmful or offensive touching it is still a Utah battery.

Assault and Battery Money Damages

Civil lawsuits for assault and battery allow for special, general and punitive damages.

Special damages are calculatable and definable, like medical bills or lost wages.

General damages are designed in Tort law to make the person whole as if the assault and battery didn’t occur. General damages look at the totality of the circumstances when deciding how much money to award. There is no cap on general damages in most Utah tort cases.

Punitive damages are only allowable in cases of intentionality or malicious behavior. Punitive damages are defined at Utah Code 78B-8-201. Punitive damages are designed to punish the wrongdoer and persuade others in the future to avoid such conduct.

Proof Required for Civil Assault and Battery Cases in Utah?

The plaintiff injured party must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

A preponderance of the evidence is defined by case law and a jury instruction, but in essence means:

(1). 51 percent proof, or

(2). The greater weight of the evidence, however slight, or

(3). After weighing all the evidence, if you decide that “a fact is more likely true than not,” then you must find that the fact has been proved. See Utah Civil Jury Instruction CV117.

To prove damages the injured party plaintiff must prove by:

First, that damages occurred. There must be a reasonable probability, not just speculation, that the injured plaintiff suffered damages from defendant’s assault and battery.

Second, the amount of damages. The level of evidence required to prove the amount of damages is not as high as what is required to prove the occurrence of damages. There must still be evidence, not just speculation, that gives a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages, but the law does not require a mathematical certainty.

In other words, if the injured plaintiff has proved that they have been damaged and has established a reasonable estimate of those damages, the at-fault defendant may not escape liability because of some uncertainty in the amount of damages. See Utah Jury Instruction 2002.

CALL/TXT UTAH PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY JAKE GUNTER (801) 373-6345. FREE CONSULT.

78B-8-201.  Basis for punitive damages awards — Section inapplicable to DUI cases or providing illegal controlled substances — Division of award with state.


1. (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, punitive damages may be awarded only if compensatory or general damages are awarded and it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.
(b) The limitations, standards of evidence, and standards of conduct of Subsection (1)(a) do not apply to any claim for punitive damages arising out of the tortfeasor’s:
(i) operation of a motor vehicle or motorboat while voluntarily intoxicated or under the influence of any drug or combination of alcohol and drugs as prohibited by Section 41-6a-502;
(ii) causing death of another person by providing or administering an illegal controlled substance to the person under Section 78B-3-801; or
(iii) providing an illegal controlled substance to any person in the chain of transfer that connects directly to a person who subsequently provided or administered the substance to a person whose death was caused in whole or in part by the substance.

(c) The award of a penalty under Section 78B-3-108 regarding shoplifting is not subject to the prior award of compensatory or general damages under Subsection (1)(a) whether or not restitution has been paid to the merchant prior to or as a part of a civil action under Section 78B-3-108.

2. Evidence of a party’s wealth or financial condition shall be admissible only after a finding of liability for punitive damages has been made.
(a) Discovery concerning a party’s wealth or financial condition may only be allowed after the party seeking punitive damages has established a prima facie case on the record that an award of punitive damages is reasonably likely against the party about whom discovery is sought and, if disputed, the court is satisfied that the discovery is not sought for the purpose of harassment.
(b) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to any claim for punitive damages arising out of the tortfeasor’s:
(i) operation of a motor vehicle or motorboat while voluntarily intoxicated or under the influence of any drug or combination of alcohol and drugs as prohibited by Section 41-6a-502;
(ii) causing death of another person or causing a person to be addicted by providing or administering an illegal controlled substance to the person under Section 78B-3-801; or
(iii) providing an illegal controlled substance to any person in the chain of transfer that connects directly to a person who subsequently provided or administered the substance to a person whose death was caused in whole or in part by the substance.

3. (a) In any case where punitive damages are awarded, the court shall enter judgment as follows:
(i) for the first $50,000, judgment shall be in favor of the injured party; and
(ii) any amount in excess of $50,000 shall be divided equally between the state and the injured party, and judgment to each entered accordingly.

(b) (i) The actual and bona fide attorney fees and costs incurred in obtaining and collecting the judgment for punitive damages shall be considered to have been incurred by the state and the injured party in proportion to the judgment entered in each party’s behalf.
(A) The state and injured party shall be responsible for each one’s proportionate share only.
(B) The state is liable to pay its proportionate share only to the extent it receives payment toward its judgment.

(ii) If the court awards attorney fees and costs to the injured party as a direct result of the punitive damage award, the state shall have a corresponding credit in a proportionate amount based on the amounts of the party’s respective punitive damage judgments. This credit may be applied as an offset against the amount of attorney fees and costs charged to the state for obtaining the punitive damage judgment.

(c) The state shall have all rights due a judgment creditor to collect the full amounts of both punitive damage judgments until the judgments are fully satisfied.
(i) Neither party is required to pursue collection.
(ii) In pursuing collection, the state may exercise any of its collection rights under Section 63A-3-301 et seq., Section 63A-3-502 et seq., and any other statutory provisions. Any amounts collected on these judgments by either party shall be held in trust and distributed as set forth in Subsection (3)(e).

(d) Unless all affected parties, including the state, expressly agree otherwise, collection on the punitive damages judgment shall be deferred until all other judgments have been fully paid. Any payment by or on behalf of any judgment debtor, whether voluntary, by execution, or otherwise, shall be distributed and applied in the following order:
(i) to the judgment for compensatory damage and any applicable judgment for attorney fees and costs;
(ii) to the initial $50,000 of the punitive damage judgment;
(iii) to any judgment for attorney fees and costs awarded as a direct result of the punitive damages; and
(iv) to the remaining judgments for punitive damages.

(e) Any partial payments shall be distributed equally between the state and injured party.
(f) After the payment of attorney fees and costs, all amounts paid on the state’s judgment shall be remitted to the state treasurer to be deposited into the General Fund.

Amended by Chapter 79, 2011 General Session

CV117 Preponderance of the evidence.

You may have heard that in a criminal case proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, but this is not a criminal case. In a civil case such as this one, a different level of proof applies: proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

When I tell you that a party has the burden of proof or that a party must prove something by a “preponderance of the evidence,” I mean that the party must persuade you, by the evidence, that the fact is more likely to be true than not true.

Another way of saying this is proof by the greater weight of the evidence, however slight. Weighing the evidence does not mean counting the number of witnesses nor the amount of testimony. Rather, it means evaluating the persuasive character of the evidence. In weighing the evidence, you should consider all of the evidence that applies to a fact, no matter which party presented it. The weight to be given to each piece of evidence is for you to decide.

After weighing all of the evidence, if you decide that a fact is more likely true than not, then you must find that the fact has been proved. On the other hand, if you decide that the evidence regarding a fact is evenly balanced, then you must find that the fact has not been proved, and the party has therefore failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that fact.

[Now] [At the close of the trial] I will instruct you in more detail about the specific elements that must be proved.

References
Johns v. Shulsen, 717 P.2d 1336 (Utah 1986).
Morris v. Farmers Home Mut. Ins. Co., 500 P.2d 505 (Utah 1972).
Alvarado v. Tucker, 268 P.2d 986 (Utah 1954).
Hansen v. Hansen, 958 P.2d 931 (Utah App. 1998)

CV2026 Punitive damages. Introduction.

In addition to compensatory damages, [name of plaintiff] also seeks to recover punitive damages against [name of defendant]. Punitive damages are intended to punish a wrongdoer for extraordinary misconduct and to discourage others from similar conduct. They are not intended to compensate [name of plaintiff] for [his][her][its] loss.

Punitive damages may only be awarded if [name of plaintiff] has proven by clear and convincing evidence that [name of defendant]’s conduct:
(1) was [willful and malicious]; or,
(2) was [intentionally fraudulent]; or,
(3) manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others, including [name of plaintiff].

“Knowing and reckless indifference” means that (a) [name of defendant] knew that such conduct would, in a high degree of probability, result in substantial harm [to another] [to property]; and (b) the conduct must be highly unreasonable conduct, or an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger or harm would be apparent to a reasonable person.

[The committee was unable to reach a working definition for “willful and malicious conduct.” For cases discussing these terms, please see Committee Note 1.]

[The committee was unable to reach a working definition for “intentionally fraudulent.” For cases discussing these terms, please see Committee Note 2.]
[Punitive damages are not awarded for mere inadvertence, mistakes, errors of judgment and the like, which constitute ordinary negligence.]
[Some of the questions on the Special Verdict form will ask if [name of plaintiff] has proved by clear and convincing evidence that [name of defendant]’s conduct (a) was [willful and malicious] [intentionally fraudulent], or (b) manifested a knowing and reckless indifference and disregard of [name of plaintiff]’s rights. If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, I will then give you further instructions.]

References
Utah Code sect. 78B-8-201(1)(a) (West 2014).
Westgate Resorts v Consumer Protection Group, LLC, 285 P.3d 1219, 1222-1223 (Utah 2012).
Daniels v. Gamma W. Brachytherapy, LLC, 2009 UT 66, 221 P.3d 256.
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003).
Hall v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 959 P.2d 109 (Utah 1998).
BMW of N. Am. Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568 (1996).
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1991).
Johnson v. Rogers, 763 P.2d 771, 773 (Utah 1988)
Gleave v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R. Co., 749 P.2d 660 (Utah Ct. App. 1988)
Biswell v. Duncan, 742 P.2d 80, 84 (Utah Ct. App. 1987)
Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hospital, 675 P.2d 1179 (Utah 1983).
Bundy v. Century Equipment, Inc., 697 P.2d 754, 759 (Utah 1984).

CV2002 Proof of damages.

To be entitled to damages, [name of plaintiff] must prove two points:
First, that damages occurred. There must be a reasonable probability, not just speculation, that [name of plaintiff] suffered damages from [name of defendant]’s fault.
Second, the amount of damages. The level of evidence required to prove the amount of damages is not as high as what is required to prove the occurrence of damages. There must still be evidence, not just speculation, that gives a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages, but the law does not require a mathematical certainty.
In other words, if [name plaintiff] has proved that [he] has been damaged and has established a reasonable estimate of those damages, [name of defendant] may not escape liability because of some uncertainty in the amount of damages.

References

Atkin Wright & Miles v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., et al., 709 P.2d 330, 336 (Utah 1985).
Renegade Oil, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2004 UT App 356.
Sohm v Dixie Eye Center, 2007 UT App 235, 166 P.3d 614.