Wallace v. Rosen Case Brief

Indiana Court of Appeals2002Docket #1897359
765 N.E.2d 192 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 459 2002 WL 442408 Torts Civil Procedure

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

3 min read

tl;dr: A teacher touched a parent on the back to get her attention during a school fire drill, causing the parent to fall. The court held the touching was not a battery, as it was not rude or offensive given the crowded, exigent circumstances.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies that for an intentional touching to constitute battery, it must be offensive to a reasonable person. It establishes that context, such as navigating a crowded space during an emergency, is critical in determining whether a contact is permissible.

Wallace v. Rosen Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Mable Wallace, a parent, was visiting her daughter’s high school. During a fire drill, Wallace was standing on a crowded staircase landing, talking with others and obstructing the flow of students. Harriet Rosen, a teacher responsible for evacuating her students, approached the group and told them to move. Due to the noise from the fire alarm, Wallace did not hear Rosen. To get her attention, Rosen touched Wallace on the back or shoulder. Wallace testified that Rosen pushed her, causing her to fall down the stairs and sustain injuries. Rosen testified that she only touched Wallace to get her attention and that Wallace did not fall. The fire drill occurred just one week after a real fire had been set in a nearby bathroom. At trial, the court refused to give Wallace’s tendered jury instruction on the tort of battery. The jury found in favor of Rosen and the school.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does an intentional touching constitute a battery when it occurs in a crowded, exigent circumstance and is not done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner?

No, the trial court did not err in refusing the battery instruction. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Does an intentional touching constitute a battery when it occurs in a crowded, exigent circumstance and is not done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner?

Conclusion

This case illustrates that the element of offensive contact in a battery Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad m

Legal Rule

A battery is the knowing or intentional touching of a person against Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat n

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis focused on the context surrounding the intentional touching to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A teacher touching a parent on the shoulder to get her
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, s

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial