McElhaney v. Thomas, 111590

In 2008, Charles Thomas drove a Ford F-150 over Emma McElhaney’s feet in a high school parking lot; she suffered significant injuries. Thomas admitted negligence; the parties disputed his state of mind (whether he intended to "bump" her).
McElhaney pleaded both negligence and an intentional tort (battery) and sought to amend to add punitive damages based on testimony she and others would offer that Thomas said he "meant to bump" her.
The district court denied leave to plead punitive damages and dismissed the intentional tort claim, characterizing the conduct as "horseplay" and concluding Kansas battery requires intent to injure (physical harm).
The jury awarded McElhaney actual damages on negligence ($46,333); she appealed the adverse rulings on battery and punitive damages (and other claims addressed separately).
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed lower-court rulings dismissing negligent entrustment and uninsured-motorist claims, but reversed the dismissal of the battery claim and the denial of punitive-damages leave, holding an intent to cause an offensive contact (e.g., to "bump") suffices for battery and to support punitive damages questions for the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether battery requires intent to cause physical injury	McElhaney: proof Thomas intended to "bump" her suffices to show the requisite intent for battery	Thomas: intent to bump is not intent to injure; battery requires intent to cause bodily harm	Held: Battery intent can be either intent to cause physical harm or intent to cause an offensive contact (invading personal dignity); intent to "bump" may suffice
Whether the district court properly denied leave to plead punitive damages	McElhaney: evidence that Thomas intended to bump supports a probability of prevailing on punitive damages (willful/wanton)	Thomas: pleading and evidence show no intent to injure or malice; punitive claim unsupported	Held: Denial was error—because battery claim survives, plaintiff met threshold probability standard to present punitive claim to jury
Whether negligent entrustment claim was barred	McElhaney sought to pursue negligent entrustment against parents	Defendants argued claim precluded by res judicata from prior proceeding	Held: Affirmed—claim precluded by res judicata (Court of Appeals' reasoning adopted)
Whether uninsured motorist claim valid against plaintiff's insurer	McElhaney sought UM coverage for Thomas	Insurer showed undisputed facts that Thomas was not uninsured	Held: Affirmed—no entitlement to recover under uninsured motorist coverage as a matter of law

Stricklin v. Parsons Stockyard Co., 192 Kan. 360, 388 P.2d 824 (1964) (discussed prior "horseplay"/intent-to-injure language; court disapproved parts of this decision)
Thomas v. Benchmark Ins. Co., 285 Kan. 918, 179 P.3d 421 (2008) (adopted Restatement intent definitions; discussed intent may be actual or inferred)
Fusaro v. First Family Mtg. Corp., 257 Kan. 794, 897 P.2d 123 (1995) (standard for district court's threshold determination to allow punitive-damages amendment)
Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539, 78 P.3d 798 (2003) (plaintiffs cannot recover twice for same actual damages)
Bowman v. Doherty, 235 Kan. 870, 686 P.2d 112 (1984) (distinctions defining willful and wanton conduct relevant to punitive damages)