Keel v. Hainline

Oklahoma Supreme Court · Torts

TortsBatteryAiding and abetting liabilitybatteryintentwrongful acttransferred intentschoolroom horseplay

Facts

During a music class at a Tulsa junior high school, the teacher was absent for about thirty to forty minutes while several male students engaged in "horse play" by throwing wooden blackboard erasers, chalk, and other objects across a classroom containing thirty-five to forty students. Plaintiff was seated near the center of the room studying and was not participating. Defendant Jennings threw an eraser at other defendants, missed, and struck plaintiff in the eye, shattering her glasses and causing loss of use of the eye. Keel participated in the activity by retrieving erasers and handing them to the throwers.

Issue

Whether intentionally throwing wooden blackboard erasers at other students in a crowded classroom constitutes a wrongful act sufficient for battery liability even though no defendant intended to injure the plaintiff, and whether a participant who aided the activity by supplying erasers may be held liable for the resulting injury.

Rule

In an action for assault and battery, intent to injure the particular plaintiff is immaterial if the act causing the injury was itself wrongful. The intentional throwing of wooden blackboard erasers at other persons in a classroom full of students is a wrongful act, even if done in sport and without intent to injure. One who aids, abets, encourages, procures, promotes, or instigates that wrongful act is liable to the same extent as the actor who directly causes the injury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a study hall in Cleveland, several teenagers began throwing hardcover notebooks at one another across a crowded classroom while waiting for a substitute teacher. Nolan Price hurled a notebook at his friend, missed entirely, and struck Maya Lin, who had been reading quietly at her desk and was not participating.

If Maya sues Nolan for battery, which is the strongest argument for Nolan's liability?

Explanation. Battery is established where the defendant intentionally does the particular act that forcefully invades another's person, so long as the act itself is wrongful. Under the majority opinion, it is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to injure the actual victim if he intentionally engaged in wrongful throwing at another person in a crowded setting. The fact that the conduct was done in sport does not make it lawful. (Derived from Keel v. Hainline (n.d.).)