## Facts

- Margaret H. Andrews and August Richard Peters, III were co-employees at Burroughs Wellcome Corporation.
- At work on September 27, 1979, Peters approached Andrews from behind and intentionally tapped the back of her right knee with his knee.
- Andrews’s knee buckled; she fell and dislocated her right kneecap.
- Andrews sued Peters for intentional assault and battery, seeking compensatory damages (including medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and permanent disability) and punitive damages.
- Peters characterized the contact as a joke and argued he did not intend to harm Andrews.
- After an earlier appellate ruling allowed an intentional-tort claim against a co-employee notwithstanding workers’ compensation exclusivity, the case proceeded to a jury trial on battery.
- The jury found Peters liable and awarded Andrews $7,500.
- The trial court granted Andrews a new trial limited to damages on the ground that the award was inadequate; the trial court did so without making adequate findings despite a request for findings and conclusions.

## Issues

1. In a battery action, must the plaintiff prove the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff, or is it enough that the defendant intended the physical contact that proved harmful or offensive?
2. When a trial court rules on a Rule 59 motion for a new trial based on inadequate or excessive damages, must it make findings of fact and conclusions of law if requested under Rule 52(a)(2)?
3. If findings and conclusions are required, were the trial court’s findings and conclusions sufficient to support appellate review?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Peters’s directed-verdict motions on liability, holding the evidence permitted a finding of battery based on Peters’s intentional contact even absent intent to injure.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court held that, upon a proper request under Rule 52(a)(2), a trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law when granting a new trial on damages under Rule 59.
- The Supreme Court further held the findings and conclusions provided were insufficient, and it affirmed the disposition vacating the damages-related orders and remanding for adequate findings.

## Legal Principles

- Battery intent is satisfied by intent to cause the contact that is harmful or offensive; intent to cause injury, hostility, or malice is not required.
- A joking or playful physical contact can constitute battery if it is intentional and results in harmful or offensive contact.
- The Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar a separate intentional tort action by an employee against a co-employee for intentional injury; co-employee immunity does not extend to intentional acts.
- When a party requests findings and conclusions under Rule 52(a)(2) in connection with a Rule 59 motion challenging damages as inadequate or excessive, the trial court must provide findings and conclusions sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

## Conclusion

The case holds that battery focuses on the intent to make the contact, not an intent to cause harm, and it also establishes that a trial court granting a new trial on damages must issue adequate findings and conclusions when properly requested so appellate courts can review the basis for setting aside a jury’s damages award.


Andrews v. Peters, 330 S.E.2d 638 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985), aff’d, 347 S.E.2d 409 (N.C. 1986)