Caudle v. Betts
512 So. 2d 389 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentional tortfeasor is liable for all consequences resulting from a battery, including those that the tortfeasor did not specifically intend and could not have reasonably foreseen. The intent required for a battery is merely the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, not an intent to cause the specific resulting injury.
Facts:
- Ruben Caudle was employed as a salesman at a car dealership owned by Peter Betts.
- On December 23, 1983, shortly before an office Christmas party, employees, including Betts, were engaging in horseplay with a charged electric automobile condenser that delivered a slight shock.
- Betts intentionally shocked Caudle on the back of his neck with the charged condenser without Caudle's consent.
- Betts then chased Caudle with the condenser until Caudle escaped by locking himself in an office.
- Following the incident, Caudle developed severe headaches and fainting spells.
- Caudle's medical issues were ultimately traced to an impairment of his occipital nerve, which required surgery to sever the nerve to alleviate his symptoms.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruben Caudle filed a personal injury suit against Peter Betts and Betts Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. in the district court (trial court).
- After a bench trial, the district court found that Betts did not intend to injure Caudle and dismissed the suit, holding that Caudle's exclusive remedy was worker's compensation.
- Caudle, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Caudle's application for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer commit an intentional tort (battery), for which the employee can recover damages outside of the worker's compensation system, when the employer intentionally makes a harmful or offensive contact with the employee as a practical joke, even without the intent to cause the specific, severe injury that results?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Justice
Yes. An employer commits a battery and is liable for all resulting damages when he intends to cause a harmful or offensive contact, even if the specific, severe injury was unintended and unforeseeable. The court reasoned that the 'intentional act' exception to the worker's compensation exclusivity rule is defined by general tort law. Under tort law, a battery is a harmful or offensive contact resulting from an act intended to cause such contact. The required intent is not a malicious desire to injure, but simply the intent to bring about the unconsented contact. The court held that Betts's act of shocking Caudle, even as a practical joke, satisfied this standard because he intended the contact, which was offensive. Crucially, the court stated that liability for an intentional tort like battery extends to all consequences, including those that are unexpected and unforeseeable, based on the principle that it is better for unexpected losses to fall upon the intentional wrongdoer than upon the innocent victim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the 'intentional act' exception to worker's compensation exclusivity in Louisiana. It establishes that the legal standard for battery does not require an intent to cause a specific or severe injury, but merely an intent to cause the offensive or harmful contact itself. The decision strongly reaffirms the 'eggshell plaintiff' rule for intentional torts, holding that a wrongdoer is responsible for the full extent of the harm caused, regardless of foreseeability. This precedent makes it easier for employees to sue employers outside of the worker's compensation system for injuries resulting from workplace horseplay that involves intentional offensive contact.
