## Facts

- A 12-year-old scout arrived at his troop’s meeting location at a church about 15–20 minutes before the scheduled start time.
- Several scouts were engaged in a hallway “game” of shooting bent paper clips at each other using rubber bands.
- The scout voluntarily joined, understood paper clips would be shot at him, and knew there was a chance he would be hit.
- He did not have paper clips and mimicked participation using a found hairband.
- After a short time, he silently stopped playing and walked toward the meeting room without telling the others he had quit.
- Within seconds, he was struck in the right eye by a paper clip, causing injury.
- He sued the other scouts for assault and battery and sued adult leaders for negligent supervision, asserting vicarious liability against the scouting organizations.

## Issues

1. Whether the scout’s voluntary participation in the paper-clip shooting game constituted consent barring assault and battery claims against the other minors.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit negligent supervision claims against the adult leaders (and vicarious liability claims against the scouting organizations) to a jury.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for all defendants entered at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
- The battery claims failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff voluntarily participated with awareness of the risk of being hit, constituting consent to the contact.
- The plaintiff’s uncommunicated decision to stop playing did not negate consent where other participants had no reason to know he withdrew from the game.
- The negligent supervision and related vicarious liability claims did not present actionable negligence on the record; without negligence by leaders, organizational liability also failed.

## Legal Principles

- Consent is a complete defense to battery when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily participates in an activity involving the challenged contact.
- A plaintiff’s withdrawal from consent must be effectively communicated to negate consent as understood by other participants.
- In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s voluntary engagement in known risky conduct can bar recovery on negligence theories.
- Negligent supervision liability requires proof of duty, breach, and proximate causation; absent actionable negligence by supervisors, respondeat superior claims against affiliated organizations fail.

## Conclusion

The court held that a minor who voluntarily joined a paper-clip shooting game, understanding the likelihood of being struck, consented to the resulting contact and could not recover for battery, and the evidence did not support negligent supervision or derivative organizational liability.


McQuiggan v. Boy Scouts of Am., 73 Md. App. 705, 536 A.2d 137 (Ct. Spec. App. 1988)