Defendant Ronnie Randall struck Plaintiff Janice Kahn's son Billy with his car while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. Plaintiff claims Defendant intentionally hit Billy for revenge due to their recent breakup. Witnesses reported Defendant was upset and said he would get even with Plaintiff. The memorandum analyzes whether Plaintiff has a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and whether her son Billy has a valid battery claim against Defendant.

1. MEMORANDUM
TO: ROBERT MARCUS
FROM: NICOLE WILLIAMS
SUBJECT: JANICE KAHN V RONNIE RANDALL
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2015
Facts:
Defendant Ronnie Randall struck Plaintiff’s Janice Khan’s son Billy on
August 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM. The defendant was intoxicated with a blood
alcohol level of .11, Defendant Randall has a history with drinking. Billy
was 11 years old at the time, he also sustained head injuries and several
broken bones and was covered in blood after the accident. Defendant
Randall was charged with drunk driving and driving with a suspended
driver’s license, his license was suspended just two weeks prior to the
accident. Two weeks prior to the accident, Defendant Randall struck another
child at the same curve where he struck Billy.
Plaintiff and Defendant dated for 10 years until two weeks prior to the
accident, Plaintiff Kahn ended the relationship. Plaintiff claims that
Defendant intentionally struck her child to enact revenge on her due to their
recent split. After the accident Plaintiff sought medical attention due to
illness symptoms. Her symptoms were headaches and anxiety, her doctor

2. 2
confirmed that it was shockdue to the accident, plaintiff was also vomiting
on a daily basis after the accident.
There were several witnesses that said Randall was upset and wobbled as he
walked. One witness said that Randall intentionally turned the steering
wheel to hit Plaintiff Kahn’s son. Plaintiff’s neighbor Rhonda, said she heard
Defendant Randall say he would get even with Kahn because of the breakup.
Legal Issue:
Does Plaintiff Kahn have a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress against Defendant Randall?
Does Plaintiff’s son Billy have a valid claim against Defendant Randall for
Battery?
Discussion:
According to the Supreme Court of the State, it holds that intentional
infliction of emotional distress is “an act done by a personwhich is extreme
and outrageous, done with intent to cause another to suffer severe emotional

3. 3
distress, and which results in distress and emotional injury to another. The
emotional injury must manifest itself with a physical problem.
In regards, to whether Plaintiff’s son Billy has a valid claim for Battery
against the defendant, the Supreme Court of the State holds that an
actionable battery is the intentional touching of another without consent
which causes injury. A touching can occur if an object other that the
individual’s body contacts the other party.
Conclusion:
In esteems to whether Plaintiff Kahn has a valid claim against Defendant
Randall for intentional infliction of emotional distress, yes she does have a
valid claim. In regards to Plaintiff’s son Billy having a valid claim against
Defendant Randall for battery, yes he does have a valid claim.