Court Opinion

ID: 9534741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:42:31.99333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:45.380852
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
This is indeed a sad day for those in the teaching profession. They will be astonished to learn that this supreme court has approved and authorized a cause of action or suit by a student who now can recover money damages from a teacher who, in an effort to maintain control of the classroom, raises his voice and strikes the student’s desk.
The classroom is a place for learning. The classroom atmosphere must be such that a fair and orderly exchange can occur between teacher and students. Keeping order in the classroom is often one of the major problems faced by teachers, and they ought to be accorded considerable latitude in the things found necessary to maintain the proper classroom decorum.
This case was really not much more than a simple verbal exchange between student and teacher. Factually reduced to its simplest terms, the student here was interrupting the teacher. The teacher attempted to maintain control of the situation by raising his voice. The student raised her voice until student and teacher were shouting at each other (this was a philosophy class). The teacher approached the student, both were shouting, and the teacher hit the desk at which the student was sitting. At this point, without more, all would agree that as a matter of law no assault or battery had occurred and there would be no cause of action upon which suit could be maintained. See Restatement, Second, Torts §§ 13, 21 (1965). But alas, student says that the teacher happened to strike a book on her desk which student says was touching her hand, and claims this to be a battery. I would hold that a battery did not occur in this case, and therefore there did not arise a cause of action upon which the student could maintain a suit for damages.
Not every unpleasant occurrence in everyday living gives rise to a cause of action or right to sue and recover damages. It is long held that words alone, no matter how distasteful, profane, unpleasant, or demeaning, will not support a claim for damages upon assault or battery. Restatement, Second, Torts § 31. So too, an unintentional touching in a crowd, for example, at a year-end sale or passing through the ticket line at a basketball game, does not give rise to a claim for damages founded upon assault or battery although the touch*1364ing technically is a battery. See Restatement, Second, Torts § 18 and comment (g). Some of life’s unpleasantries we simply accept as a cost of living together in a developed and sometimes crowded society. I would, therefore, hold that what occurred between teacher and student here was neither an assault nor a battery, and that student has no cause of action and may not maintain suit against teacher for recovery of damages.
There is another reason this case should be accorded a merciful demise. In addition to it being a wrong public policy decision, the court violates every rule of law governing litigation by pro se litigants and representation by lay persons. In this case appellant represented herself pro se. She complied with few of the rules of procedure with respect to pleadings, filing documents and appearances in court in pursuing this litigation against the teacher. We have consistently held that an individual who elects self-representation is held to the same standard as an attorney, Annis v. Beebe & Runyan Furniture Co., 685 P.2d 678, 680 (Wyo.1984), and failure to comply with mandatory rules will result in dismissal of the case. A generous and compassionate judge declined dismissal of this case because of appellant’s failure to comply with rules of procedure and practice. But there is more. Appellant did not even appear for the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. She was represented by her husband, a lay person. A second critical violation of our rules which provide that a lay person may not practice law and may not represent another in litigation before the courts. Rule 11, Rules Providing for the Organization and Government of the Bar Association of the Attorneys at Law; W.S. 33-5-117; See Dawson v. City of Casper, 731 P.2d 1186, 1187-88 (Wyo.1987).
It ought to be clear to everyone that this case is going nowhere. This court would do society and teachers a service by acknowledging and applying its own rules of law and putting an end to this no-claim suit for damages by student against her teacher.