## Facts

- Charles A. Nelson and Albert Carroll argued in a private Baltimore nightclub about a debt Nelson owed Carroll.
- Carroll, described as “a little tipsy,” demanded full repayment and produced a handgun from his jacket.
- Nelson offered partial payment; Carroll remained dissatisfied.
- A defense witness testified Carroll intentionally struck Nelson on the head with the handgun and then drew back to strike again, at which point the gun discharged and shot Nelson in the stomach.
- Nelson testified Carroll drew the pistol, demanded all his money, and Nelson then heard a shot and realized he was bleeding.
- Nelson suffered severe injuries, including a serious abdominal wound and near-complete loss of eyesight.
- Carroll did not testify at the civil trial; he had pleaded guilty in related criminal proceedings and was incarcerated.
- Nelson sued Carroll for battery; the jury returned a verdict for Carroll, and the trial court denied Nelson’s motions for judgment and JNOV.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant can avoid civil liability for battery by claiming the gun discharged “accidentally” when the defendant intended to strike the plaintiff with the handgun.
2. Whether, on undisputed evidence of an intentional harmful or offensive contact, liability for battery should be decided as a matter of law, leaving only damages for the jury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for Carroll.
- The court held that a claim of “accident” did not defeat battery liability where the undisputed evidence showed Carroll threatened and intentionally struck Nelson with a handgun and the gunshot occurred during that intentional contact.
- The court concluded Carroll was liable for battery as a matter of law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings limited to determining damages.

## Legal Principles

- Battery requires intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact (or apprehension of such contact), not intent to cause a specific injury or a particular degree of harm.
- A defendant who intentionally commits a harmful or offensive touching is liable for resulting harm directly caused by that contact, even if the precise injury was unintended or unforeseen.
- “Accident” is not a defense to battery when the asserted accident concerns only the manner in which injury occurred during an intentional, wrongful touching.
- When the evidence permits no reasonable finding that the defendant lacked intent to make harmful or offensive contact, the court may decide liability as a matter of law and submit only damages to the factfinder.

## Conclusion

Because the undisputed evidence showed Carroll intentionally struck Nelson with a handgun and the gun discharged during that intentional act, Carroll’s characterization of the shooting as accidental did not negate the intent element of battery; liability was established as a matter of law, and only damages remained for adjudication.


Nelson v. Carroll, 355 Md. 593, 735 A.2d 1096 (Md. 1999)