liberally construing petition as an action against employer for negligent hiring and retention of employee with propensities towards violence who struck plaintiff and threw him to the ground
How later courts described this case
- liberally construing petition as an action against employer for negligent hiring and retention of employee with propensities towards violence who struck plaintiff and threw him to the ground
- “the fundamental distinction between assault and battery, on the one hand, and negligence, on the other, is that the former is intentional and the latter is unintentional”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Price, J.,
dissenting: In my opinion the decision of the court confuses form and substance. What plaintiff actually is attempting to do is to recover, under the guise of a negligence action, for an assault and battery. Despite the language in which the petition is couched, the real wrong complained of, and the real basis of his action — is the assault and battery. An action to recover for an assault and battery must be brought within one year (G. S. 1949, 60-306, Fourth). This action was brought too late. Defendant’s demurrer should have been sustained. For this reason I respectfully dissent.
■ Parker, C. J., joins in the foregoing dissent.