Hall v. McBryde
919 P.2d 910 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intent to commit an assault by placing a third party in imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact is sufficient to satisfy the intent requirement for battery against an unintended plaintiff who is actually harmed.
Facts:
- James McBryde purchased a handgun and hid it under the mattress in his bedroom.
- His son, Marcus McBryde, discovered the loaded gun without his parents' knowledge.
- To avoid gang-related issues, Marcus was living with a relative but had his father's permission to be at his parents' house on January 14, 1993, to retrieve clothing.
- On that day, Marcus saw youths in a car approach the house, and one of them began shooting towards the residence.
- Marcus retrieved the hidden gun and fired four shots toward the car.
- During the exchange of gunfire, a bullet struck Eric Hall, who lived next door, causing a serious abdominal injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Hall sued Marcus McBryde for battery and Marcus's parents, James and Kathleen McBryde, for negligent maintenance of a weapon and negligent supervision in a Colorado trial court.
- Following a trial where the court reviewed deposition testimony, the trial court found in favor of all defendants on all claims.
- The trial court entered a final judgment for the defendants.
- Eric Hall (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals against Marcus McBryde and his parents (appellees).
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 a defendant's intent to place a third party in apprehension of a harmful bodily contact satisfy the intent requirement for a battery claim brought by an unintended victim who was actually struck and injured?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Hume
Yes, a defendant's intent to place a third party in apprehension of a harmful bodily contact satisfies the intent requirement for a battery claim by an unintended victim. The trial court erred by failing to properly analyze the doctrine of transferred intent. The intent element for battery is met if the actor intends to cause either a harmful contact or an imminent apprehension of such contact. By firing a loaded weapon at the car, Marcus, as a matter of law, intended to put the occupants in apprehension of a harmful contact. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 16(2), that intent to commit an assault transfers to the unintended victim, Eric Hall, who suffered the actual harmful contact (the battery). Therefore, the intent element for battery against Hall is satisfied. The judgment for James and Kathleen McBryde on the negligence claims is affirmed, as the trial court's findings that they exercised reasonable care were supported by the evidence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the application of the doctrine of transferred intent within the tort of battery. It explicitly establishes that the intent to commit an assault (placing another in apprehension of contact) is transferrable to an unintended victim who suffers a battery (an actual harmful contact). This decision broadens the potential liability for defendants, confirming they can be held liable for battery even if they never intended to physically touch anyone, so long as they intended to scare one person and ended up harming another. This precedent is significant for cases involving bystanders injured during altercations where a perpetrator's specific intent was not directed at them.
Unlock the full brief for Hall v. McBryde