Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co. (1984)

a.       Facts- P worked for D. D told/made P work in the back, where it was known that an infestation of bats were located. P was bitten by a bat and required anti-rabies treatment, which left her blind. P filed suit for loss of consortium because of assault

b.      Procedural History- Special verdict found for P, trial Ct entered a judgment that P take nothing. Ct of appeals reversed.

c.       Issue- Whether intention of outcome is required to claim assault

d.      Holding- No, intention of outcome is not necessary to claim assault

e.       Rule- Intention of additional and subsequent harm from an assault is NOT necessary to claim assault

f.       Rationale- Intentionally placing the P in fear of being attacks by the bats was an “assault”

g.      Notes:

                                                              i.      Egg-shell Skull: Take the plaintiff as they are…what they tell you, you must follow

                                                            ii.      Consent- When you are dealing with a job…sometimes you don’t have a choice. It’s a different type of power that the employer asserts over the employee

                                                          iii.      Intent doesn’t require to intend actual harm…only the apprehension of actual harm or offense