Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
North Carolina Court of Appeals
428 S.E.2d 453 (1993)
Battery and assault are intentional torts. Thus, the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with intent. A North Carolina court explored the intent element of both battery and assault in Holloway versus Wachovia Bank and Trust.
Wachovia Bank sent Jean Dawson to repossess a car from Hallie Holloway.
Dawson found the car in a parking lot with Hallie in the driver's seat holding her sleeping infant son, Damien. Sue Holloway, Hallie's mother, and Swanzett Holloway, Halle's ten year old niece, were also in the car. When Dawson reached across Halle and tried to take the keys out of the ignition, Dawson's elbow dug into Damien's back. Dawson then retrieved a pistol from her own car and pointed it at Halle, ordering her out of the car, but Halle drove away.
Eventually, the Holloway's sued Wachovia and Dawson for assault based on Dawson's gun pointing. Halle and Damien also brought claims for battery based on Dawson's reach into the car. The trial court dismissed Halle's and Sue's claims due to a statute of limitations.
Damien's and Swanzett's claims proceeded to trial.
To support her assault claim, Swanzett testified that she saw Dawson point the gun at Halle and feared that Dawson would shoot her.
The defense moved for a directed verdict on Damien's battery claim and Swanzett's assault claim.
They argued that by elbowing Damien, Dawson didn't commit a battery because she didn't intend to harm him. The defense also argued that Swanzett's assault claim was insufficient because Dawson pointed the gun at Halle, not Swanzett.
The trial court issued directed verdicts against Damien and Swanzett.
They appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/holloway-v-wachovia-bank-trust-co
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/holloway-v-wachovia-bank-trust-co
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
North Carolina Court of Appeals
428 S.E.2d 453 (1993)
Battery and assault are intentional torts. Thus, the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with intent. A North Carolina court explored the intent element of both battery and assault in Holloway versus Wachovia Bank and Trust.
Wachovia Bank sent Jean Dawson to repossess a car from Hallie Holloway.
Dawson found the car in a parking lot with Hallie in the driver's seat holding her sleeping infant son, Damien. Sue Holloway, Hallie's mother, and Swanzett Holloway, Halle's ten year old niece, were also in the car. When Dawson reached across Halle and tried to take the keys out of the ignition, Dawson's elbow dug into Damien's back. Dawson then retrieved a pistol from her own car and pointed it at Halle, ordering her out of the car, but Halle drove away.
Eventually, the Holloway's sued Wachovia and Dawson for assault based on Dawson's gun pointing. Halle and Damien also brought claims for battery based on Dawson's reach into the car. The trial court dismissed Halle's and Sue's claims due to a statute of limitations.
Damien's and Swanzett's claims proceeded to trial.
To support her assault claim, Swanzett testified that she saw Dawson point the gun at Halle and feared that Dawson would shoot her.
The defense moved for a directed verdict on Damien's battery claim and Swanzett's assault claim.
They argued that by elbowing Damien, Dawson didn't commit a battery because she didn't intend to harm him. The defense also argued that Swanzett's assault claim was insufficient because Dawson pointed the gun at Halle, not Swanzett.
The trial court issued directed verdicts against Damien and Swanzett.
They appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/holloway-v-wachovia-bank-trust-co
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/holloway-v-wachovia-bank-trust-co
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
