Matheson v. Pearson
In Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P.2d 321 (Utah 1980), a maintenance man sustained injuries when a student threw a piece of candy from an open window at him, striking him in the back. Id. at 321-22.
The only way the injured plaintiff could recover against the student for his injuries was if the act sounded in negligence rather than battery, since the statute of limitations on battery had already run by the time the case was filed. Id. at 322.
The Court held that battery requires an intent to harm, not just an intent to make contact, and that the adolescent prank did not involve the requisite intent. Id. at 322-23.
Thus, the injured maintenance man was able to proceed with his suit on a theory of negligence.