## Facts

- A homeowner permitted her high-school-senior daughter to host a scavenger-hunt ending party at the home.
- Near midnight, two teenage guests began a fistfight, pushing and throwing punches at each other.
- The homeowner attempted to stop the fight by yelling and then stepping between them.
- She was struck in the face and head, suffering serious dental and jaw/neck injuries.
- She sued both fighters almost two years later, pleading negligence and alleging she was unintentionally struck while they intended to hit each other.
- In depositions, the defendants stated they did not intend to hit the homeowner, only each other.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s pleaded negligence claims were, in substance, claims for assault and battery governed by Kansas’ one-year statute of limitations, rather than negligence governed by the two-year statute.
2. Whether transferred intent applies when a defendant intentionally fights another person but unintentionally strikes a third party intervenor.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the claims sounded in assault and battery, not negligence.
- The defendants’ intent to strike each other in a fight satisfied the intent element for battery as to the unintended victim under transferred intent.
- Because the action was filed after one year, it was time-barred under K.S.A. 60-514(b).

## Legal Principles

- Civil actions for assault and battery must be filed within one year under K.S.A. 60-514(b); negligence actions are subject to a two-year period under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4).
- Tort “intent” exists when an actor desires the consequences of an act or believes the consequences are substantially certain to result (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A).
- Battery does not require a specific intent to strike the particular plaintiff; intent may transfer when the defendant aims at one person but hits another.
- Courts determine the nature of a claim from the underlying conduct, not the plaintiff’s label in the pleadings, including for statute-of-limitations analysis.

## Conclusion

Because the defendants intentionally engaged in a fistfight and the resulting contact with the plaintiff was treated as battery through transferred intent, the suit was governed by Kansas’ one-year limitations period for assault and battery and was dismissed as untimely.


Baska v. Scherzer, 283 Kan. 750, 156 P.3d 617 (Kan. 2007)