Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Kearbey Ex Rel. Kearbey
1989 Kan. App. LEXIS 428, 775 P.2d 670, 13 Kan.App.2d 564 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual's insanity does not relieve them from civil liability for an intentional tort, such as battery, as the requisite intent is only to make physical contact, not to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act.
Facts:
- Alan Kearbey was a 14-year-old student at Goddard Junior High School.
- On January 21, 1985, Kearbey brought a gun to the school.
- Kearbey shot several people at the school, including Don Harris, a teacher, and Daniel Williams, a student.
- Both Harris and Williams were wounded in the leg as a result of the shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Don Harris and Daniel Williams sued Alan Kearbey in a Kansas trial court for the tort of battery.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, Harris and Williams.
- In response to a special question submitted by the court, the jury also found that defendant Kearbey was insane at the time of the shooting.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding Kearbey civilly liable for damages despite the jury's finding of insanity.
- Defendant Kearbey, the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
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 person's insanity preclude civil liability for an intentional tort, such as battery, when that person is capable of intending the physical act that causes the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, J.
No. A person's insanity does not preclude civil liability for an intentional tort. The court reaffirmed the long-standing Kansas precedent from Seals v. Snow, which is based on the public policy principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it is more just for the loss to be borne by the one who caused it. The court rejected arguments that modern psychiatry reduces the risk of feigned insanity or that changing policies on mental health confinement undermine the rule. For an intentional tort like battery, the only intent required is the intent to bring about a harmful or offensive contact; the actor's motives and understanding of the act's wrongfulness are irrelevant. This rule aligns with the unanimous view of all American jurisdictions that have considered the question, prioritizing compensation for the victim over the mental state of the tortfeasor.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a traditional, yet consistently held, doctrine in American tort law, firmly distinguishing civil liability from criminal culpability. By refusing to import the complexities of the criminal insanity defense into the civil system, the court reinforces that the primary goal of tort law is victim compensation, not punishment. This ruling solidifies the principle that liability is tied to the act of causing harm, and the financial burden should fall on the actor, regardless of their mental capacity, rather than on the innocent injured party. Future cases in this area will likely continue to follow this strong precedent, focusing on the defendant's intent to act rather than their motive or sanity.
