FISHER V. CARUSEL Mootel, INC.

FISHER v CARROUSEL MOTOR HOTEL, INC
No. B 342
Supreme Court of Texas, Dec. 27, 1967

Facts: The Plaintiff was a mathematician worked in a Space Agency call NASA and accepted an invitation to a one-day meeting at the Carrousel Motor Hotel. At lunch time, the hotel services it as a buffet and the Plaintiff were close to served its food when the Defendant an employee of Carrousel Hotel and manager of the Brass Ring Club dispossess the Plaintiff of his plate and in a loud manner said and offensive words that embarrassed and harm the Plaintiff.
Procedural History: The 61st District Court granted Defendant’s motion. The Plaintiff appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Texas, reversed the decision and condemn for a battery occurred and the corporation was condemn for exemplary damages of $900 dollars with interest from the dates of the trial court’s judgement and the cost of the suit.
Issued Presented: The Battery may occur regardless a physical contact, it is possible to compensate the mental and psychological damages caused by the Defendant's conduct. Also, are the Corporations liable for the conduct of his employees?
Decision: The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the decision from the Court of Civil Appeals

and compensate the Plaintiff monetarily.
Holding : The Supreme Court extend the concept of Battery. It is possible that a person suffers a damaged not only by physical contact but a psychological harm caused by a conduct of other. Also, the corporations may be punished for the conduct of its employees and in this case the Defendants act as employment and enforce the Club rules.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court must create a strong precedent that the human been may be harm by the conduct of another person not only physical but physiological and in an emotional way.

This case is very important for futures situations because it is not required a physical contact in order to perform a Battery. The Court clarified that are part of the body the objects that may be attached to it, as in this case the dish that the Plaintiff has in his hand. Also, the responsibilities of the corporation by the conduct of its employees. They must carefully instruct his employees to avoid that kind of conducts. In this case, the Corporation was condemned because was unable to prove that it did not support the conduct of the

Defendant.
Precedents: Harned v E-Z Ginance Co., 151 Tex. 641, 254, S.W. 2d 81 (1953) Define indignity, the defendant is liable by the conduct that harm others, actions that offended or insulting others. It is a proper Battery and no other kind of torts.
King v McGuff, 149 Tex 432,234 S.W. 2d 403 (1950) The rule in Texas define that the principal or master are reliable if … “ (c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment” Pg. 630;
S.H.Kress & Co. v Brashier, 50 S.W. 2d 922 (Tex.Civ.App 1932 no writ) The Battery occur by holding an offensive contact. In this case the Defendants “Dispossess plaintiff of the Book” and “caused her to suffer “humiliation and indignity””
Concurrence/Dissent: None filed.
Policy Discussion & Implications: The decision in the case benefits society in two ways, first protected the human been from invasion of its integrity not only physical but psychological. And also protected people from behaves that harm them without physical contact. Also, called the attention of corporations and its managements to conduct the business with respect to others and if the companies support those kind of conduct must be responsible for the actions of their employees.