Matheson v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 09 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 16565,16565 |
| Citation | 619 P.2d 321 |
| Parties | Gaylen J. MATHESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mike PEARSON and Scott Sullivan, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert W. Miller of Richards, Brandt, Miller, Nelson & Zarr, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Philip R. Fishler of Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, Willard R. Bishop, Michael W. Park, Cedar City, for defendants and respondents.
The plaintiff appeals the District Court's granting of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand the matter to the District Court for a trial on the merits. All statutory references are to Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended.
The plaintiff, Gaylen Matheson, was employed as a maintenance man at a junior high school in Gedar City, Utah. While unloading supplies from a pickup on January 29, 1976, he was struck on the head by a tootsie pop, which had been thrown from a second floor window of the adjacent school building by the defendant, Mike Pearson. Mike Pearson's act of throwing the object at the plaintiff was precipitated by a dare from his co-defendant Scott Sullivan. The defendants testified that while they intended to try to hit the plaintiff with the tootsie pop they did not intend to harm him in any way and merely undertook the misadventure as an adolescent prank.
Nevertheless, the blow stunned the plaintiff, who fell to his knees. Later, the plaintiff allegedly became ill, experienced dizziness and eventually lost consciousness. After being taken to the emergency room, the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital and has undergone various medical treatments relating to his head injury. Accompanying these medical expenses the plaintiff contends he has lost income and his physical and mental health have been seriously affected by the incident.
On April 20, 1978, the plaintiff initiated a suit against the defendants to recover damages proximately resulting from their negligent act. In an Amended Answer the defendants averred their actions constituted an intentional assault and battery and, therefore, any suit concerning the incident was governed by the one year statute of limitations found in 78-12-29. Accepting this contention the District Court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment.
The only issue before this Court on appeal is whether or not the act of the defendant in throwing the object at the plaintiff constituted an intentional assault and battery which would remove the plaintiff's action from the four year statute of limitations found in 78-12-25(2).
The gravamen of an assault and battery is the actor's intention to inflict injury. 1 As Justice Traynor explained in Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co.: 2
3
An individual may undertake an intentional act, such as throwing the tootsie pop in this particular case, and if the act is undertaken without an intent to harm or a substantial certainty that harm will result from the act, the actor is not guilty of an intentional tort. Instead, in such a situation, the activity is properly classified as reckless disregard of safety or reckless misconduct. 4
Such reckless misconduct results when a person, with no intent to cause harm, intentionally performs an act so unreasonable and dangerous that he knows or should know, it is highly probable that harm will result. 5 As explained in comment (f) of Section 500, Restatement of Torts, 2d:
6
It is this absence of intent to harm which renders reckless misconduct or reckless disregard of safety a form of negligence and not an intentional tort. 7
In the present case, the trier of fact could find the defendant acted with no intent to harm the plaintiff and their acts did not create a substantial certainty of harm from which a harmful intent can be imputed. Rather, the fact finder could determine the defendants acted in reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff, which constitutes a form of negligence governed by the four year statute of limitations found in 78-12-25(2). Therefore, the District Court's summary judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for trial on the merits.
This opinion should not prejudice any issues of fact at the subsequent trial. Our decision merely establishes that considered in a light favorable to the plaintiff at this stage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adamson v. City of Provo, Utah
...the statute, be filed within four years from the date the statute begins to run. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3) (1992); Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P.2d 321 (Utah 1980). In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit expressly concluded that Utah's four-year residual statu......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 93-C-898J.
...misconduct requires only that there is a `strong probability' that harm may result." Id. at 1163 & n. 1 (quoting Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P.2d 321, 322 (Utah 1980)). "When a person, with no intent to cause harm, intentionally performs an act so unreasonable and dangerous that he knows or sh......
-
Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert
...touching that is harmful or offensive. See D.D.Z. v. Molerway Freight Lines, 880 P.2d 1, 3 (Utah App.1994); Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P.2d 321, 322 n. 1 (Utah 1980). Whether the pat-down searches constituted battery under Utah law is a question not presented for our review.3 Appellants also ......
-
Shorters v. City of Chicago
...of limitations which applies to "an action for relief not otherwise provided for by law," id. § 78-12-25(2). See, e.g., Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P.2d 321 (Utah 1980). Accordingly, we conclude that all section 1983 claims brought in federal court in Utah are subject to the four-year limitati......