## Facts

- Richard Alteiri, a minor, was struck in the right eye by a stone thrown by John Colasso, also a minor at the time, causing severe, painful, and permanent injury.
- Richard and his mother sued; the case was pleaded and tried solely as an intentional tort (battery), with the mother seeking medical and related expenses.
- The incident occurred on April 2, 1966; suit was commenced in March 1969.
- The jury, via special interrogatories, found that Colasso threw the stone that struck Richard and did so with intent to scare a person other than Richard.
- The jury found Colasso did not intend to strike Richard or anyone else and did not act negligently, wantonly, or recklessly.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who intends only to place another person in apprehension (assault) can be liable in battery to an unintended victim who is actually struck and injured (transferred intent).
2. Whether the action was governed by the three-year limitations period for actions founded on a tort (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577) or the one-year period for personal injuries caused by negligence or reckless/wanton misconduct (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584), and whether the trial court erred in removing the § 52-584 defense from the jury.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The verdict for willful battery was legally supportable because an intent to commit an assault on one person can supply the intent element for battery when the defendant’s act results in harmful contact with another person.
- The three-year limitations period in § 52-577 applied because the jury found intentional conduct, not negligence or reckless/wanton misconduct; therefore § 52-584 was inapplicable.
- Any claimed error concerning the § 52-584 defense did not prejudice the defendant because that statute did not govern the cause of action as found by the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Battery may be established when an actor intends an assault against one person but causes harmful bodily contact to another; the unintended injury is actionable as a battery by the person actually injured (transferred intent).
- For intentional injury, it is not necessary that the actor intend the precise injury that occurs; an intentional act without just cause or excuse may satisfy the intent requirement when it results in harmful contact.
- Transferred intent in intentional torts does not require the actor to know of, suspect, or be negligent regarding the presence of the unintended victim.
- The applicable statute of limitations depends on the nature of the wrong proven and found by the factfinder; intentional tort actions fall under § 52-577, while § 52-584 applies to negligence and reckless/wanton misconduct claims.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability for battery where the defendant intended only to frighten someone else but instead struck and injured the plaintiff, and it held the action timely under the three-year limitation for tort actions because the jury found intentional conduct rather than negligence or reckless/wanton misconduct.


Alteiri v. Colasso, 168 Conn. 329, 362 A.2d 798 (Conn. 1975)