Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc. Case Brief

Supreme Court of Rhode Island1995Docket #2050379
654 A.2d 690 1995 R.I. LEXIS 28 1995 WL 58804 Torts Evidence

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

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

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A mechanic was found liable for battery for touching a camera a woman was holding. The court affirmed liability under the “extended personality” doctrine but vacated a large damage award because the plaintiff failed to prove her alleged back injury was caused by the incident.

Legal Significance: This case is a key example of the “extended personality” doctrine in battery, holding that intentional, offensive contact with an object intimately connected to a person’s body (like a camera in hand) is sufficient to constitute a battery.

Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc. 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

The plaintiff, Victorie Picard, was at a garage when the defendant, Jesse Silvia, a mechanic, arrived to inspect her car’s brakes. Picard attempted to photograph Silvia, who objected. The photograph showed Silvia pointing his index finger at Picard as he approached her. Picard testified that Silvia then “lunged” at her and grabbed her shoulders. Silvia denied touching her body but admitted to placing his finger on her camera to stop her from taking another picture. An eyewitness testified that Silvia grabbed Picard’s shoulder with one hand to get the picture. Following the incident, Picard, who had a ten-year history of back problems, claimed she suffered a permanent ruptured disc. Her only medical evidence of causation was an affidavit from a doctor who had not examined her in over five and a half years and had previously given contradictory opinions about the permanency of the injury. The trial court found for Picard, awarding substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does an intentional and unconsented contact with an object held by a person, such as a camera, constitute a battery, and if so, did the plaintiff present sufficient evidence to prove that this contact caused her alleged permanent injury?

Yes, the defendant’s contact with the plaintiff’s camera constituted a battery, but 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. Du

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does an intentional and unconsented contact with an object held by a person, such as a camera, constitute a battery, and if so, did the plaintiff present sufficient evidence to prove that this contact caused her alleged permanent injury?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the application of the extended personality doctrine in modern 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

Legal Rule

An assault is a physical act of a threatening nature that puts 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 ipsu

Legal Analysis

The court determined that the defendant's actions constituted an assault because his 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, 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

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Battery: An intentional, offensive touching of an object intimately connected with
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, su

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+