Keel v. Hainline
331 P.2d 397 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who intends to commit a wrongful act is liable for a resulting battery under the doctrine of transferred intent, even if the specific victim or injury was unintended. Furthermore, any person who aids, abets, or encourages the commission of that wrongful act is jointly liable for the harm caused.
Facts:
- Approximately 35-40 junior high students were left unsupervised in a classroom for 30-40 minutes when their teacher failed to appear.
- During this time, several male students, including defendant Robert Keel and co-defendant Larry Jennings, engaged in 'horse play'.
- The activity involved the students splitting into two groups at opposite ends of the room and throwing wooden blackboard erasers and other items at each other.
- Plaintiff Patricia Ann Burge was sitting at her desk studying and was not participating in the activity.
- An eraser thrown by Jennings, intended for another participant, missed its target and struck Burge in the eye.
- The impact shattered Burge's eyeglasses, resulting in the permanent loss of use of her eye.
- None of the defendants intended to strike or injure Burge; their intent was to throw the objects at each other in sport.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Ann Burge, a minor, sued Larry Jennings, Robert Keel, and other minors in a trial court for personal injuries.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Burge.
- At trial, the court overruled defendant Keel's demurrer to the evidence and his motion for a directed verdict.
- Defendant Keel, acting alone, appealed the judgment to the state's highest 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 person who aids and abets a wrongful act, such as throwing objects at others in a classroom, liable for an injury that results from that act, even if the specific injury was unintended and the injured person was not the intended target?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Justice.
Yes. A person who aids and abets a wrongful act is liable for the resulting injury, even if the harm was unintentional and befell an unintended victim. The court reasoned that throwing wooden erasers at people in a crowded classroom is an inherently wrongful act, not innocent 'horse play,' regardless of the lack of intent to cause serious injury. The only intent required for battery is the intent to commit the wrongful act itself—in this case, throwing the eraser at a person. Under the doctrine of 'transferred intent,' when Jennings intended to throw the eraser at one person but struck Burge, his wrongful intent transferred to Burge, establishing a battery. Keel, by retrieving erasers and supplying them to the throwers, actively aided and abetted this wrongful conduct. The law holds that one who aids or encourages a wrongful act is as responsible as the person who directly commits it, making Keel jointly liable for Burge's injury.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of two fundamental tort principles: transferred intent and accomplice liability. The court's decision clarifies that intent for battery relates to the commission of the wrongful act itself, not the specific outcome or injury. By classifying the students' 'horse play' as an inherently wrongful act, the ruling lowers the bar for finding liability in cases involving reckless games that result in harm. This precedent makes it clear that all participants who actively encourage or assist in such wrongful conduct share full liability for any resulting injuries, preventing defendants from escaping responsibility by claiming they were not the direct cause of the harm.
Unlock the full brief for Keel v. Hainline