## Facts

- Erica Bailey babysat two minor children in a home in Carrollton, Texas.
- C.S., a four-year-old child, asked Bailey to play; she said she would shortly because she was helping the other child with dinner.
- C.S. then ran up and struck Bailey in the throat.
- Bailey alleged she suffered a crushed larynx and impaired vocal function for several months.
- Bailey sued C.S. for battery and sought to hold his parents liable.

## Issues

1. Whether a four-year-old is categorically incapable, as a matter of law, of forming the intent required to commit civil battery.
2. Whether the defendants conclusively negated the elements of intent and damages to justify traditional summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment granted in favor of C.S.
- The court held that minority alone does not establish lack of intent as a matter of law for an intentional tort.
- The court held the summary-judgment record did not conclusively negate intent, given evidence supporting an intentional striking.
- The court held the defendants also failed to conclusively negate damages in light of evidence of significant throat injury and months-long impairment.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas, minors may be civilly liable for intentional torts; there is no fixed age cutoff that automatically defeats intent as a matter of law.
- A defendant seeking traditional summary judgment must conclusively negate at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s claim or conclusively establish an affirmative defense.
- Intent commonly presents a fact question; when the record supports reasonable inferences favoring the nonmovant, summary judgment is improper.
- Damages are also a fact issue when the plaintiff presents evidence of more than minimal injury and the movant does not conclusively disprove causation or harm.
- When a trial court grants summary judgment without specifying grounds, the judgment cannot stand if any challenged ground was not conclusively proved.

## Conclusion

The court held that a four-year-old’s age does not, by itself, preclude a finding of intent for civil battery and that the defendants did not meet the summary-judgment burden to conclusively negate intent or damages, requiring reversal and remand.


Bailey v. C.S., 12 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000)