Facts
- A group of neighborhood children played near a pile of sand and a box of mortar.
- William Peterson, about thirteen years old, picked up a piece of mortar and announced he would throw it at another child, Willie Haffner.
- As the children ran, Peterson threw the mortar “in sport.”
- The mortar struck and severely injured five-year-old Freddie Haffner, destroying Freddie’s eye.
- Freddie, through a next friend, sued Peterson for assault and battery.
- A jury returned a verdict for Freddie and awarded $1,000 in damages.
- Peterson’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed.
Issues
- Whether a defendant who intentionally throws an object at one child can be liable for battery when the object instead strikes and injures another child, despite lack of intent to injure the child actually struck.
- Whether the defendant’s infancy (approximately age 13) is a defense to liability for an intentional tort such as assault and battery.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held the evidence supported an actionable battery based on the intentional throwing of the mortar, even though the serious injury to Freddie was unintended and Freddie was not the intended target.
- The court rejected infancy as a defense to an intentional tort and held Peterson’s minority did not excuse liability for assault and battery.
- The jury’s $1,000 verdict and the trial court’s denial of a new trial were left undisturbed.
Legal Principles
- A voluntary and intentional application of force directed at another may constitute battery even if the actor did not intend the resulting injury’s severity.
- Liability for an intentional tort may attach when an intended contact or application of force toward one person results in harmful contact to a different person (transferred intent).
- Infancy is not, by itself, a defense to intentional tort liability; minors may be held personally liable for assault and battery.
- In intentional torts, unintended consequences flowing directly from the wrongful act do not negate liability where the underlying intentional act is wrongful.
Conclusion
The court affirmed liability for battery where a thirteen-year-old intentionally threw mortar at a child during play and instead caused catastrophic injury to another child, holding that the intent to commit the wrongful act sufficed and that the actor’s minority did not excuse responsibility for an intentional tort.