Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick
Citation: 654 A.2d 690 (R.I. 1995)
Facts
Picard, a customer, was arguing with a car dealership employee about her car’s brake inspection. The employee pointed his finger at and touched Picard’s camera. Picard sued for battery, claiming the contact was offensive and intentional.
Issue
Does touching an object closely associated with a person’s body — such as something held in their hand — constitute battery?
Holding
Yes. The employee’s intentional touching of the camera held by Picard constituted battery. Contact with an object intimately connected to a person is treated as contact with the person for purposes of battery.
Rule
Battery — contact with connected objects: Battery does not require direct contact with the plaintiff’s body. Intentional contact with an object closely connected to the plaintiff’s person (held in hand, worn on body) satisfies the contact element if the contact is offensive or harmful.
Significance
- Extends battery doctrine to objects held or worn by the plaintiff
- Illustrates that the “contact” element of battery is not limited to skin-to-skin contact
- Applied in cases involving snatching items from someone’s hands, hitting a cane, etc.