Weisbart v. Flohr
67 Cal. Rptr. 114, 260 Cal. App. 2d 281, 1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1854 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor is civilly liable for damages resulting from an intentional tort, such as battery. The intent required is only the intent to perform the act that causes the harm, not the intent to cause the specific resulting injury.
Facts:
- Dean Flohr, a seven-year-old boy, and Dawn Weisbart, a five-year-old girl, were neighbors.
- While holding a bow and homemade arrow, Dean told Dawn to get off the lawn in front of his house or he would shoot her.
- Following his threat, Dean aimed the weapon in Dawn's general direction, pulled back the bowstring, and shot the arrow.
- Dean later testified that he only intended to frighten Dawn by shooting near her feet, but the arrow was deflected by his thumb.
- The arrow struck Dawn in her left eye, resulting in its total and complete loss.
- Dean admitted he knew it was wrong to point an arrow at another person and that his father had warned him never to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Weisbart sued Dean Flohr, a minor, and his parents, Lorraine and Robert Flohr, in a state trial court.
- The complaint alleged that Dean was liable for negligence and battery, and that his parents were liable for negligent supervision.
- During the trial, the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict against Dean Flohr on the battery claim was denied by the trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants: Dean Flohr and his parents.
- The plaintiff, Dawn Weisbart, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District.
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 minor who intentionally shoots an arrow in the direction of another person, intending only to frighten them but not to hit them, liable for battery when the arrow strikes and injures the person?
Opinions:
Majority - Conley, P. J.
Yes. A minor is liable for the intentional tort of battery when they intend to commit the act that results in harm, even if they did not intend to cause the specific resulting injury. Under California Civil Code section 41, a minor is civilly liable for wrongs they commit. While negligence considers a child's age and capacity, liability for battery does not require the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act. The necessary intent for battery is the intent to do the particular act in question—in this case, shooting the arrow in the plaintiff's direction. Citing precedent such as Ellis v. D’Angelo, the court reasoned that the primary purpose of tort law in this context is to compensate the injured party, meaning the loss should fall on the wrongdoer rather than the 'guiltless person,' regardless of the wrongdoer's age or moral culpability. Because Dean intended to shoot the arrow towards Dawn, he is liable for the resulting battery.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal distinction between a minor's liability for negligence and their liability for intentional torts. It clarifies that while a child's age and mental capacity are central to determining negligence, they do not provide a shield against liability for intentional acts like battery. The ruling establishes that the focus in such cases is on the intent to commit the physical act, not the intent to cause the specific harmful consequence. This strengthens the legal principle that compensating the victim is a paramount goal of tort law, even when the tortfeasor is a child who may not have fully comprehended the potential severity of their actions.
