McElhaney v. Thomas
Kansas Supreme Court
405 P.3d 1214 (2017)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
High-school student Emma McElhaney (plaintiff) was the team manager for the school baseball team on which classmate Charles Thomas (defendant) was a player. One day, while McElhaney was walking through the school parking lot toward a bus for an away game, Thomas approached her from behind in a pickup truck. Hearing the vehicle, McElhaney moved toward the curb to avoid being hit. However, the front wheel of Thomas’s truck still rolled onto McElhaney’s feet, trapping her and causing her to fall. Thomas then backed up, placed McElhaney in the truck, and drove her to the bus for medical help. McElhaney filed a suit against Thomas for punitive damages, alleging that his conduct constituted the intentional tort of battery. At trial, both McElhaney and a passenger from Thomas’s truck testified that Thomas had expressed intent to bump McElhaney with his truck. Thomas denied such intent, claiming that he merely misjudged distances while parking. The district court dismissed McElhaney’s battery claim, concluding that even if Thomas did intend to bump McElhaney, Thomas lacked intent to cause injury and therefore could not, as a matter of law, be liable for battery. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal, and McElhaney appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stegall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.