Howard v. Wilson (p. 186): The Mississippi Supreme Court holds that even though the plaintiff’s complaint sought to characterize the defendant’s ‘violent attack” as an instance of negligence, the complaint really alleged a claim of battery that was time-barred because of the operation of the applicable statute of limitations on intentional tort claims.
Point for Discussion: Why did the plaintiff, Wilson, was so desperate to have the court buy the argument that her claim was a negligence claim rather than a battery claim? Explain the case and elements needed to be met for the claims.
100 word thanks
