## Facts

- During a junior-high music class in Tulsa, approximately 35–40 students waited in a classroom for an instructor who did not arrive for about 30–40 minutes.
- Several boys began sustained “horse play,” throwing wooden blackboard erasers and other objects across the room between groups positioned at opposite ends.
- The throwing continued for roughly 30 minutes in a classroom occupied by other students.
- Patricia Ann Burge, a student not participating in the activity, sat near the center of the room studying.
- An eraser thrown by another student struck Patricia’s eye, shattered her eyeglasses, and caused loss of use of the eye.
- Robert Keel did not throw the eraser that hit Patricia, but participated by retrieving erasers and supplying them to others so the throwing could continue.
- Patricia, through her guardian, sued multiple boys for damages on an assault-and-battery theory; the jury returned a verdict against all defendants.
- Keel alone appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and error in instructions concerning assault and battery and aiding-and-abetting liability.

## Issues

1. Whether deliberately throwing objects across a classroom constitutes a wrongful act supporting battery liability despite lack of intent to injure the particular victim.
2. Whether a participant who did not throw the injuring object is liable as a joint tortfeasor when he knowingly assisted the activity by supplying objects to be thrown.
3. Whether the evidence and jury instructions were sufficient to submit assault-and-battery and aiding-and-abetting theories to the jury.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against Keel.
- The court held the coordinated throwing of erasers and similar objects in a crowded classroom was a wrongful, intentional act supporting battery liability even without intent to injure Patricia.
- The court held Keel could be found jointly liable because he participated in and aided the activity by retrieving and supplying erasers to others.
- The court found no reversible error in denying Keel’s demurrer to the evidence or motion for directed verdict and no instructional error on assault and battery or aiding-and-abetting liability.

## Legal Principles

- Battery liability may attach when a defendant intentionally engages in a wrongful act that results in harmful contact, even if the defendant did not intend the specific injury or the identity of the person harmed.
- When the intentional act is unlawful or wrongful, the law may treat the required intent as satisfied even if the harm was not specifically desired.
- A defendant may be liable as a joint tortfeasor for an intentional tort if he knowingly assists, encourages, or facilitates the tortious conduct (concerted action/aiding and abetting).
- In a group activity involving deliberate throwing of objects, a participant’s contribution to sustaining the activity can support causation and joint liability even if another participant delivered the injuring blow.
- Claims of insufficient evidence and instructional error fail where the record permits a reasonable jury to find wrongful intentional conduct and knowing participation by the defendant, and the instructions correctly state the governing law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld battery liability arising from deliberate classroom “horseplay,” ruling that the wrongful nature of intentionally throwing objects supplied the intent needed for battery and that a non-throwing participant who supplied the missiles could be held jointly liable for aiding and abetting the tort.


Keel v. Hainline, 331 P.2d 397 (Okla. 1958)