Andrews v. Peters
330 S.E.2d 638 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of battery requires only the intent to make a harmful or offensive contact, not an intent to cause the specific injury that results. An intentional wrongdoer is liable for all consequences flowing from the battery, including those that are unintended and unforeseeable.
Facts:
- Margaret H. Andrews and August Richard Peters, III were co-employees at Burroughs Wellcome Corporation.
- On September 27, 1979, while at work, Peters approached Andrews from behind.
- Peters tapped the back of Andrews' right knee with the front of his own right knee.
- Peters stated he did not intend to be rude or offensive and that the act was meant as a practical joke, as a similar thing had just been done to him.
- The contact caused Andrews' knee to buckle, making her lose her balance and fall to the floor.
- As a result of the fall, Andrews dislocated her right kneecap, which led to significant and lasting injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret H. Andrews sued August Richard Peters, III in a North Carolina trial court for intentional assault and battery.
- The trial court initially granted Peters' motion to dismiss, finding the Workers' Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy.
- On a prior appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial, holding that the Act does not bar intentional tort claims between co-employees.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Andrews, finding Peters liable for battery and awarding $7,500 in damages.
- Andrews filed a Rule 59 motion for a new trial on the issue of damages, alleging the award was inadequate.
- The trial court granted Andrews' motion for a new trial on damages.
- Peters (as appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting the new trial to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, with Andrews as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intentional tort of battery require that the defendant intend to cause a specific injury, or is it sufficient that the defendant only intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Becton
No. The intentional tort of battery does not require an intent to cause injury, but only an intent to bring about a harmful or offensive contact. The court reasoned that tort liability is concerned with the intent to invade another's interests in a forbidden way, not necessarily with a hostile intent or a desire to cause harm. Citing Prosser & Keeton and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court affirmed that even a 'good-natured practical joke' can constitute a battery. Peters admitted he intended to tap Andrews' knee, which qualifies as an offensive contact because it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity and was not consented to. Therefore, Peters is liable for all consequences resulting from his intentional act, even those he did not intend or foresee, on the principle that it is better for unexpected losses to fall on the intentional wrongdoer than the innocent victim.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Judge Wells
This opinion concurs with the majority's holding on the substantive issue of battery and the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss. However, it dissents from the majority's procedural holding, arguing that Rule 52 does not require a trial court to make specific findings of fact when making a discretionary ruling on a Rule 59 motion for a new trial in a jury case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the classic tort doctrine of 'intent' for battery within North Carolina jurisprudence. It clarifies that the defendant's subjective motive or lack of intent to cause harm is irrelevant; the focus is solely on the intent to make the unconsented contact. The ruling significantly impacts cases involving pranks or horseplay that result in unexpected injury by holding the actor strictly responsible for all resulting harms. This strengthens the legal protection of bodily integrity from any form of unconsented, offensive touching, regardless of the actor's 'good-natured' intentions.
Unlock the full brief for Andrews v. Peters