McElhaney v. Thomas

Supreme Court of the State of Kansas · 2017 · Torts

Tortsbatterypunitive damagesintentional tortsbatteryintent to injureoffensive contactharmful contact

Facts

In a high school parking lot, Charles Thomas drove his parents' Ford F-150 over Emma McElhaney's feet, causing significant injury. McElhaney presented evidence that after the incident Thomas said he 'just meant to bump' her, and another witness affidavit and an accident report supported that Thomas had been 'messing around.' Thomas denied any intent to bump her and claimed he simply pulled too close while parking. The district court excluded the intent-to-bump evidence, refused to let the battery claim go to the jury, and denied punitive damages.

Issue

Whether evidence that Thomas intended to 'bump' McElhaney with his truck was legally sufficient to support a civil battery claim and to permit McElhaney to seek punitive damages. More specifically, the court asked whether Kansas battery requires proof that the defendant intended to cause physical injury or bodily harm, rather than merely intending an offensive contact.

Rule

Civil battery is the unprivileged touching or striking of one person by another, done with the intent to bring about either harmful or offensive contact. The required 'intent to injure' element may be satisfied in either of two ways: intent to cause harmful bodily contact, or intent to cause offensive bodily contact that invades the other's reasonable sense of personal dignity. If a defendant intends an offensive contact and bodily harm legally results, battery liability extends to the resulting physical injury. For punitive damages, if the evidence viewed favorably to the plaintiff is sufficient to allow a rational factfinder to find willful or wanton conduct, amendment to assert punitive damages should be allowed.

🔒

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.

Outside a concert venue in Tulsa, Nolan Pierce slowly rolled his scooter toward Ava Menon and later told a friend, "I was only trying to nudge her out of the way." The scooter brushed Ava's legs, and she stumbled, suffering a torn ligament.

If Ava sues Nolan for civil battery, which is the strongest argument that her claim should reach the jury?

Explanation. Civil battery requires an unprivileged touching or striking done with intent to bring about harmful or offensive contact. The required intent to injure may be shown either by intent to cause harmful bodily contact or by intent to cause offensive bodily contact invading the other's reasonable sense of personal dignity. If offensive contact is intended and bodily harm legally results, liability can extend to the resulting injury even without intent to cause that injury.