Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. 428 S.E.2d 453 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) Parties: Plaintiff – Hallie Holloway – Person who defaulted on car loan that was made by D. Defendant – Wachovia Bank & Trust Co – Company that employed Jean Dawson, person who tried to repossess car while P was in it. Facts: P purchased a car that was financed by D. P defaulted on the car loan. Jean Dawson, an employee of D, tried to repossess the car in the parking lot outside of a laundromat. In the car was, P, P’s mother Sue, P’s 10 year old niece Swanzett and P’s 4 month old son Damien. Dawson brandished a gun while trying to repossess the car Procedural Posture: Each P sought recovery for assault. Haliie and Damien Holloway also sought recovery for battery arising from Dawson’s touching them while trying to take the keys out of the ignition. Trial court dismissed assault claims for Hallie and Sue Holloway because of statute of limitations. Trial court held in favor for D on Damien Holloway’s battery claim and both Swanzett and Damien Holloway’s assault claims. P appealed. Issue: Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing Damien Holloway’s claim for assault? Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing Damien Holloway’s claim for battery? Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing Swanzette Holloway’s claim for assault? Holding: The court holds that the trial court was correct in dismissing Damien Holloway’s assault claim. The court also holds that both Damien’s battery claim and Swanzette’s assault claim are valid and remand for a new trial for these two claims. Legal Reasoning: Issue 1 – Legal Reasoning The assault claim for Damien Holloway was correctly dismissed because Hallie testified that during the repossession of the car Damien was either asle ep or too young to understand what was going on. Since Damien didn’t experience any apprehension of injury, he doesn’t have a valid claim for assault Issue 2 – Legal Reasoning While trying to take the car keys out of the ignition, Jean Dawson had her elbow in the back of Damien Holloway. Since Dawson didn’t have any consent to touch Damien, Damien’s claim for battery should have gone to the jury. Issue 3 – Legal Reasoning (Swanzett’s assault claim) Even though Swanzett testified that the gun wasn’t directly pointed at her but at Hallie and Damien, the court claims that Swanzett has a valid claim based on the theory of transferred intent. Transferred Intent: If an act is done with the intention of affecting a third person but puts another in apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact, the actor is subject to liability to such other as fully as though he intended so to affect him.