## Facts

- Dieter W. Hellriegel sued individually and as guardian ad litem for his minor son, Wolf-Jurgen (“Dicka”) Hellriegel.
- The defendants were three minor boys who were friends of Wolf-Jurgen: John Tholl, Gregory Haverfield, and Michael Dorris (through his guardian ad litem).
- The boys spent an afternoon near Lake Washington engaged in recreation, including water-skiing and physical “horseplay.”
- After discussion about throwing someone into the lake, Wolf-Jurgen stated that his friends could not throw him into the water even if they tried.
- The defendants attempted to carry Wolf-Jurgen to the lake while he resisted; during the struggle one boy slipped and fell onto the back of Wolf-Jurgen’s head, causing serious injury.
- The complaint was originally framed in negligence and recklessness but was amended before trial to proceed on a battery theory.
- The father sought damages for medical expenses and, on the son’s behalf, damages for disability, lost income, and general damages.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorably to the plaintiff, there was sufficient evidence to submit a prima facie battery claim against any defendant to the jury.
2. Whether the injured boy’s participation in and invitation to rough “horseplay” constituted consent that defeated the battery claim, even though he did not consent to the particular injury.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.
- Applying the nonsuit standard, the court treated the plaintiff’s evidence as true and drew reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Even under that standard, the boy’s own testimony established consent to the rough-and-tumble activity, including being grabbed and carried toward the water.
- Because consent negated the unconsented-to-contact element of battery for accidental injuries within the scope of the consensual horseplay, the evidence did not support a prima facie battery claim.
- The case was properly taken from the jury and dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion for nonsuit (or other sufficiency challenges), the court must accept the nonmoving party’s evidence as true, draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, and interpret the evidence most strongly against the movant.
- Battery requires harmful or offensive contact without consent; consent to the contact defeats liability.
- A person who consents to engage in rough-and-tumble horseplay accepts the risk of accidental injury inherent in that activity; such consent is a defense to a battery claim, even though the person did not consent to the specific injury.
- When the plaintiff’s own testimony shows the challenged contact occurred within the scope of the consented-to activity, a battery claim may fail as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that the injured boy’s words and conduct amounted to consent to the physical contacts inherent in the attempted throw-into-the-lake horseplay, so the resulting accidental injury could not support a battery claim; the nonsuit dismissing the action was affirmed.


Hellriegel v. Tholl, 69 Wn.2d 97, 417 P.2d 362 (Wash. 1966)