1. Read the SAMPLE FINAL CASE and SAMPLE FINAL CASE ANALYSIS

2. Read the ALLMAN case (next page). Work with your group to write a CASE ANALYSIS of the Allman case, using the FINAL CASE ANALYSIS FORM (below)

FINAL CASE ANALYSIS FORM FOR ANALYSIS OF THE ALLMAN CASE:

Type your answers (using full sentences) on this document, in Word, under the appropriate headings. The goal is to give the reader the essentialinformation regarding the case in a clear, but concise manner. The paper is limited to a maximum of 3 double spaced pages.

The purpose is to show that you understand the case & can break it down into its key component parts.

The name of the case

A statement of the KEY facts, including the LEGAL BASIS of the case(EG: breach of contract.

Report on the status of the legal process: stage of litigation:what was the trial and/or lower court ruling and what is being appealed to what court level.

The legal question/issue the court need to address

An evaluation of the competing interests in this matter: what are the key arguments on each side.

The legal rule the court is adopting that is now the precedent

The decision of the case: EG: affirmed, reversed, reversed and remanded and in whose favor.

A brief explanation of the impact or likely relevance for business

A brief evaluation of or comment on the decision by the student(s)

ALLMAN, v MASTERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The plaintiff-appellant, Allman, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his complaint against the defendants-appellees, Masters Communications, William Cunningham and Andy Furman, for battery.In his single assignment of error, Allman contends that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, therefore, the trial court was in error when it granted the defendants' motion. We agree.

In his complaint, Allman claims to be "a nationally known" antismoking advocate. Allman alleges that, on the date of the Great American Smokeout, he was invited to appear on the Masters Bill Cunningham radio talk show to discuss the harmful effects of smoking and breathing secondary smoke. He also alleges that, while he was in the studio, Furman, another Masters talk-show host, lit a cigar and repeatedly blew smoke in Allman's face "for the purpose of causing physical discomfort, humiliation and distress."

For the court to grant a motion to dismiss, "it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery."A court cannot dismiss a complaint merely because it doubts the plaintiff will prevail.

Allman contends that Furman's intentional act constituted a battery. The Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, states: "An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if "(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other, and "(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

In determining if a person is liable for a battery, the Supreme Court has adopted the rule that "contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact." It has defined "offensive" to mean "disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibilities or affronting insultingness." Furthermore, since tobacco smoke, is "particulate matter," it has the particulate properties capable of making physical contact with another.

As alleged in Allman's complaint in this case, when Furman intentionally blew cigar smoke in Allman's face, under Ohio common law, he committed a battery. No matter how trivial the incident, a battery is actionable, even if damages are only one dollar. The rationale is explained by Roscoe Pound in his essay "Liability": "[I]n civilized society men must be able to assume that others will do them no intentional injury -- that others will commit no intentioned aggressions upon them."

Other jurisdictions also have concluded that a person can commit a battery by intentionally directing tobacco smoke at another. We do not, however, adopt or lend credence to the theory of a "smoker's battery," which imposes liability if there is substantial certainty that exhaled smoke will predictably contact a nonsmoker. Allman's claim for battery is based exclusively on Furman's commission of a deliberate act, knowing that Allman was opposed to tobacco smoking and would find it offensive.

Accordingly, Allman's claim for battery with the allegations againstthe three defendants is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

We reverse the trial court's order that dismissed the battery claim in the complaint.This cause is remanded for further trial proceedings consistent with law.