This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Professor Neher and P had long been acquainted because of their mutual interest in music, specifically, the piano. Professor Neher was a social guest at Ps' home when the incident here occurred. One morning, P was seated at a counter writing a resume for inclusion in the University's department newsletter. Professor Neher walked up behind P and touched her back with both of his hands. The resulting contact generated unexpectedly harmful injuries, according to Ps. P suffered from thoracic outlet syndrome on the right side of her body, requiring the removal of the first rib on the right side. She also experienced scarring of the brachial plexus nerve, which necessitated the severing of the scalenus anterior muscles. Professor Neher stated he intentionally touched Mrs. White's back, but his purpose was to demonstrate the sensation of this particular movement by a pianist, not to cause any harm. Professor Neher explained that he has occasionally used this contact method in teaching his piano students. P said Professor Neher's act took her by surprise and was non-consensual. P stated she would not have consented to such contact and that she found it offensive. Ps argue that because Professor Neher did not intend to cause harm, injury, or offensive contact, his act constitutes negligence rather than the intentional tort of battery. Ps brought this action as a tort claim against D and Professor Richard Neher, alleging that Professor Neher, while acting within the course and scope of his employment with the University, struck Mrs. White (P), causing her injuries. The district court granted D's motion for summary judgment, holding that under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, I.C. § 6-904(3), a governmental entity has no liability 'for any claim which . . . [a]rises out of . . . battery' committed by an employee. Ps appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals concluded that Professor Neher did in fact commit a battery, reasoning that the intent required for the commission of a battery is simply the intent to cause an unpermitted contact, not an intent that the contact be harmful or offensive. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.