Lexplug logoLexplug

McElhaney v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Kansas
405 P.3d 1214 (Kan. 2017) (2017)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The intent element of civil battery is satisfied by an intent to cause either harmful bodily contact (physical injury) or offensive bodily contact (invasion of personal dignity); an intent to cause specific physical injury is not required if the actor intended the offensive contact.


Facts:

  • In the spring of 2008, Charles Thomas (a senior) and Emma McElhaney (a sophomore) were students in a high school parking lot.
  • Thomas was driving his parents' Ford F-150 truck to move it closer to a team bus.
  • McElhaney was walking through the parking lot toward the bus.
  • Thomas drove the truck up behind McElhaney.
  • The front-passenger tire of the truck rolled onto McElhaney's feet, trapping her and causing significant injury.
  • Witnesses alleged that immediately after the incident, Thomas stated he 'just meant to bump' McElhaney or was 'messing around,' though Thomas later denied making these statements.

Procedural Posture:

  • McElhaney sued Thomas in the Riley District Court for negligence and intentional tort (battery).
  • McElhaney filed a motion to add a claim for punitive damages against Thomas.
  • The District Court denied the motion for punitive damages and dismissed the intentional tort claim, ruling that 'intent to bump' was merely 'horseplay' and not 'intent to injure.'
  • The District Court granted a motion in limine excluding evidence that Thomas intended to bump McElhaney.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial on the negligence claim only (where Thomas admitted negligence), and the jury awarded actual damages.
  • McElhaney appealed the dismissal of her intentional tort and punitive damages claims to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
  • The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's rulings, relying on the 'horseplay' precedent.

Locked

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 admission that he intended to 'bump' a plaintiff with a vehicle satisfy the intent element required for civil battery and punitive damages, even if he claims he did not intend to cause physical injury?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stegall

Yes, an intent to cause offensive bodily contact is sufficient to establish the requisite intent for civil battery. The Court reasoned that while an 'intent to injure' is a necessary element of battery, this element is satisfied in two alternative ways: (1) an intent to cause physical injury, or (2) an intent to invade the other's reasonable sense of personal dignity (offensive contact). By adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the Court clarified that a defendant is liable for battery if they intend an offensive contact, even if they did not intend the resulting physical harm. Therefore, an intent to 'bump' a pedestrian with a truck constitutes an intent to cause offensive contact. The Court explicitly disapproved of prior case law (Stricklin) that recognized 'horseplay' as a defense, ruling that such conduct falls within the definition of battery if the offensive intent is present. Consequently, because the battery claim was valid, the evidence was also sufficient to allow a jury to consider punitive damages for willful or wanton conduct.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies Kansas tort law by explicitly overruling the 'horseplay' defense established in the 1964 Stricklin decision. It broadens the scope of civil battery liability by firmly establishing that a plaintiff need not prove the defendant intended actual physical harm; proving the defendant intended an offensive contact (like a joke or prank) is sufficient to attach liability for all resulting physical injuries. This aligns Kansas with the Restatement (Second) of Torts and prevents defendants from avoiding liability for severe injuries caused by 'pranks' simply by claiming they didn't mean to hurt the victim, only to annoy or touch them.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McElhaney v. Thomas (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"