## Facts

- Marcus McBryde, a minor, was at his parents’ home after school to retrieve clothing, though he was living with a relative in another neighborhood to avoid gang-related problems.
- Marcus’s father, James McBryde, had purchased a handgun and kept it loaded and concealed under the mattress in the parents’ bedroom; he believed he was the only person in the home aware of it.
- Marcus stated his father never told him about the gun and that he discovered it himself.
- A car carrying other youths approached; an occupant fired toward the McBryde house.
- Marcus retrieved the handgun and fired four shots toward the car.
- Eric Hall, a next-door neighbor, was struck in the abdomen by a bullet during the exchange and required extensive medical treatment.
- The trial court made no finding whether Hall was hit by a bullet fired by Marcus or by someone in the car.
- Hall sued Marcus for battery and sued James and Kathleen McBryde for negligent maintenance of a weapon and negligent supervision.
- None of the defendants appeared at trial; the court relied on Hall’s testimony and depositions and entered judgment for all defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether battery requires proof that Marcus intended to shoot or harm Hall specifically, or whether transferred intent can satisfy the intent element when a bystander is injured.
2. Whether James and Kathleen McBryde breached a duty of reasonable care in maintaining and storing the handgun, proximately causing Hall’s injury.
3. Whether the parents negligently supervised Marcus given the neighborhood risks and his access to the gun.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
- It reversed the judgment for Marcus on the battery claim, holding the trial court applied an unduly narrow view of intent.
- It affirmed judgment for James and Kathleen on negligent maintenance of a weapon, finding no breach by James and no basis for liability as to Kathleen due to lack of knowledge of the gun.
- It affirmed judgment for the parents on negligent supervision, finding insufficient evidence of foreseeability or prior violent behavior requiring heightened supervision.

## Legal Principles

- For battery, intent may be established through transferred intent when a defendant acts with intent directed at one person (including intent to cause apprehension of harmful contact) and harmful contact results to an unintended victim.
- A defendant need not intend to harm the particular plaintiff to satisfy the intent element of an intentional tort when transferred intent applies.
- Parental liability for negligent maintenance of a firearm requires proof of a breach of reasonable care; concealment and lack of reason to know of a child’s access may defeat breach.
- A parent who lacks knowledge of a weapon’s presence generally cannot be liable for negligent maintenance based on that weapon.
- Negligent supervision turns on foreseeability; absent evidence of prior violent conduct or other warning signs, parents are not liable merely because a child later commits a violent act.

## Conclusion

The court held that a bystander’s injury can support a battery claim under transferred intent based on the shooter’s intent to cause apprehension or harmful contact toward others, requiring reversal and remand as to the minor, while affirming that the parents were not negligent in firearm storage or supervision on the record presented.


Hall v. McBryde, 919 P.2d 910 (Colo. App. 1996)