## Facts

- Emma McElhaney, a high-school student, was walking in a school parking lot toward a team bus for an away baseball game.
- Charles Thomas, also a student, drove a Ford F-150 pickup in the lot near McElhaney.
- As McElhaney moved toward the curb to avoid the truck, the truck’s front wheel rolled onto and trapped her feet, causing serious injury, including a broken foot.
- Thomas backed the truck off her feet and drove her to meet the bus for medical assistance.
- McElhaney alleged Thomas intentionally drove close enough to “bump” her as horseplay; McElhaney and a passenger testified Thomas said he “only meant to bump” her, while Thomas denied intent and claimed he misjudged distance while parking.
- McElhaney sued Thomas for negligence and civil battery, sued Thomas’s parents for negligent entrustment, and asserted uninsured motorist-related claims against her insurer.
- Thomas conceded negligence; the case proceeded to a jury only on compensatory damages for negligence, and McElhaney accepted the jury’s damages award.
- The district court dismissed the battery claim, denied leave to add punitive damages, granted summary judgment to the parents on negligent entrustment, and dismissed the uninsured motorist claim; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a civil battery claim may be dismissed as a matter of law when the evidence could support that the defendant intended an offensive “bump” but did not intend physical injury.
2. Whether denial of leave to assert punitive damages was proper where the court rejected the intentional tort theory on an overly narrow intent standard.
3. Whether the negligent entrustment claim against the parents was barred by res judicata.
4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits on the undisputed facts.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Reversed dismissal of the battery claim against Thomas; evidence could permit a finding that Thomas intended an offensive contact, making intent a fact question.
- Reversed denial of leave to assert punitive damages against Thomas because the ruling rested on the same erroneous view of battery intent.
- Affirmed dismissal of negligent entrustment against Thomas’s parents as barred by res judicata.
- Affirmed dismissal of the uninsured motorist claim because the undisputed facts did not support coverage.

## Legal Principles

- Civil battery is an unprivileged touching or striking done with intent to cause either (a) harmful contact or (b) apprehension of harmful or offensive contact.
- The “intent to injure” element of battery may be met by either intent to cause harmful bodily contact (physical injury) or intent to cause offensive bodily contact (an invasion of reasonable personal dignity).
- Evidence that a defendant intended an offensive contact—even as “horseplay”—can support battery liability for resulting legally caused physical injuries; “horseplay” is not a separate doctrinal category that defeats battery.
- When evidence could support an intentional offensive-contact theory, dismissal of battery and related punitive-damages theories is improper because intent is generally for the fact-finder.
- Res judicata can bar a negligent entrustment claim where a prior action already resolved that claim.
- Uninsured motorist benefits are unavailable when the undisputed facts do not satisfy statutory and policy requirements for coverage.

## Conclusion

The court held that Kansas battery intent is not limited to intent to cause physical injury; intent to cause offensive contact suffices, requiring reinstatement of the battery and punitive-damages theories against the driver while leaving intact the dismissals of negligent entrustment and uninsured motorist claims.


McElhaney v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 45, 405 P.3d 1214 (Kan. 2017)