Hendrix v. Burns
43 A.3d 415
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Hendrix sued Burns and Burns as to battery and negligent entrustment; battery was dismissed as a summary judgment matter, liability on negligence conceded, and damages were tried; Burns admitted liability after liability phase, and Burns’s wife admitted negligent entrustment liability; the court barred evidence of Burns’s drunkenness/road rage and past criminal history before damages-only trial; a later amendment to add intentional misconduct to negligent entrustment was struck; trial proceeded to damages with extensive evidence of injuries and emotional distress; jury awarded Hendrix $85,000; Hendrix appealed the rulings on battery summary judgment, in limine evidence, and amendment to the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battery summary judgment proper? | Hendrix contends intent to harm or transferred intent supported battery. | Burns argues no specific or transferred intent; record lacks evidence of intent to harm Hendrix. | Battery summary judgment affirmed; no legally sufficient intent or transferred intent shown. |
| admissibility of pre- and post-accident conduct evidence? | Excluded evidence relevant to damages and emotional distress from awareness of Burns's conduct. | Evidence irrelevant to damages; highly prejudicial; properly excluded. | Rulings in limine affirmed; pre/post conduct not admissible to prove damages. |
| Striking amendment to negligent entrustment count? | Amendment necessary to reflect discovered evidence; connection to damages remains. | Amendment unnecessary; evidence would be prejudicial and irrelevant since liability admitted. | Court did not abuse discretion striking the amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Carroll, 355 Md. 593 (Md. 1999) (battery requires intent to cause contact; transferred intent discussed)
- Saba v. Darling, 320 Md. 45 (Md. 1990) (battery vs. negligence; transfers of intent analyzed)
- Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Ltd. P'ship, 351 Md. 460 (Md. 1998) (pre-impact fright damages context distinguishes emotional distress scope)
- Vance v. Vance, 286 Md. 490 (Md. 1979) (emotional distress from misrepresentation; damages relation to discovery timing)
- Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435 (Md. 1993) (emotional distress damages linked to post-incident learning; timing and causation)