Baska v. Scherzer
283 Kan. 750, 156 P.3d 617 (2007) (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of transferred intent, an intentional act (such as battery) that harms an unintended third party is still treated as an intentional tort. The character of the tort is determined by the actor's intent to commit the act, not the identity of the resulting victim, for purposes of applying the correct statute of limitations.
Facts:
- Celesta Baska gave her high school-aged daughter permission to host a party at their home.
- During the party, two guests, Harry Scherzer, Jr., and Calvin Madrigal, got into a physical altercation.
- Scherzer and Madrigal began pushing each other and throwing punches with the intent to hit one another.
- Baska yelled at them to stop and then physically stepped between them in an attempt to break up the fight.
- While positioned between the two, Baska was struck in the face and head, losing several teeth and sustaining other injuries.
- Both Scherzer and Madrigal later testified that they intended to strike each other, but did not intend to strike Baska.
Procedural Posture:
- Celesta Baska filed a negligence lawsuit against Harry Scherzer, Jr., and Calvin Madrigal in Kansas district court nearly two years after she was injured.
- The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing the claim was actually for assault and battery and thus barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the defendants, agreeing that the doctrine of transferred intent applied and the claim was time-barred.
- Baska (as appellant) appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court, holding the action sounded in negligence because Baska was an unintentional victim, making the two-year statute of limitations applicable.
- The defendants (as petitioners) successfully sought review from the Kansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a personal injury claim, brought by an unintended victim who was struck during a fight between two other individuals, governed by the one-year statute of limitations for assault and battery under the doctrine of transferred intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, J.
Yes. The claim is governed by the one-year statute of limitations for assault and battery because the doctrine of transferred intent applies. The court must look at the substance of the claim, not the way it is pleaded. The fundamental distinction between battery and negligence is intent. Here, Scherzer and Madrigal intended to throw punches and cause harmful contact; their actions were intentional. The doctrine of transferred intent dictates that the intent to strike one person transfers to an unintended victim who is actually struck. Therefore, the essential character of the tort committed against Baska was battery, an intentional tort, not negligence. Because her claim was for battery, it is subject to the one-year statute of limitations, and her lawsuit, filed almost two years after the injury, is time-barred.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the vitality of the common law doctrine of transferred intent in Kansas jurisprudence, particularly in the context of statutes of limitations. The court clarified that the nature of a cause of action is determined by the defendant's state of mind regarding the act itself, not the identity of the person harmed. This precedent prevents plaintiffs from circumventing shorter statutes of limitations for intentional torts through 'clever pleading' that frames the claim as negligence. The ruling solidifies the principle that substance prevails over form, requiring courts to analyze the underlying conduct to classify the tort correctly.
Unlock the full brief for Baska v. Scherzer