## Facts

- A 14-year-old student shot multiple people at a Kansas junior high school, killing the principal and wounding a teacher (Don Harris) and a student (Daniel Williams), each shot in the leg.
- Harris and Williams sued the shooter for battery and also sued his parents and the school district.
- A jury found the shooter was insane at the time of the shooting and did not understand the nature of his act.
- The jury nonetheless found for Harris and Williams on battery, allocating fault 80% to the shooter, 0% to his parents, and 20% to the school district, and awarding damages to each plaintiff.
- The trial court barred Harris’s claim against the school district under workers’ compensation and granted a directed verdict against Williams’s claim against the district based on governmental immunity, but still permitted fault allocation to the district.
- Only the shooter appealed, challenging his civil liability for battery in light of the insanity finding.

## Issues

1. Whether insanity is a defense to civil liability for an intentional tort (battery) under Kansas law.
2. Whether a person found insane at the time of the act can, as a matter of law, form the intent required to commit battery.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held that an insane person may be held civilly liable for intentional torts under Kansas law.
- The court held that an insane person can commit battery if the person intended the physical act and resulting contact, even if the person’s reasons were irrational or the person lacked rational understanding.

## Legal Principles

- In Kansas, insanity does not bar civil liability for intentional torts; an insane tortfeasor remains liable for injuries caused by the tortious act.
- For battery, intent focuses on whether the actor intended the act and the harmful or offensive contact, not on whether the actor’s motivations were rational or whether the actor appreciated the nature or wrongfulness of the conduct.
- Tort law may impose liability on an insane actor to allocate losses to the person who caused the injury rather than leaving the loss with an innocent victim, even though insanity may have different effects in criminal law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a battery judgment against a defendant found insane at the time of a school shooting, ruling that Kansas law imposes civil liability despite insanity and that battery intent is satisfied when the actor intended the act and contact even if mentally ill and irrational.


Williams v. Kearbey, 775 P.2d 670 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989)