England v. S & M FOODS, INC.
511 So. 2d 1313 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A battery is any intentional and unpermitted contact with another's person, where 'intent' includes not only desiring the physical results of an act but also believing they were substantially certain to follow from what was done.
Facts:
- Betty England was employed by S & M Foods, Inc. at its Dairy Queen restaurant in Tallulah, Louisiana.
- Larry Garley was the manager of this Dairy Queen restaurant.
- Several hamburgers were incorrectly prepared by employees and subsequently returned by a customer.
- Garley became upset about the returned hamburgers, used profane language, and threw a hamburger.
- The thrown hamburger hit Betty England on the leg and splattered on her.
- The incident occurred in the presence of several restaurant patrons and other employees.
- England became emotionally upset and cried as a result of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty England (plaintiff) instituted an action against S & M Foods, Inc. and Larry Garley (defendants) in a trial court to recover damages for a battery.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of England, awarding her $1,000 for humiliation and embarrassment as a result of the battery.
- S & M Foods, Inc. and Larry Garley (defendants-appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
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 employee commit a battery if, during an argument, they throw an object that hits a co-worker, even if they claim not to have intended to hit or injure the co-worker, but were substantially certain that contact would occur?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasper E. Jones
Yes, an employee commits a battery under these circumstances because the manager's actions constituted intentional and unpermitted contact. A battery is defined as any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person, and for intentional torts, intent means the defendant either desired the physical results of the act or believed they were substantially certain to follow. The trial court found that Larry Garley committed a battery by throwing a hamburger that hit Betty England on the leg, causing her humiliation and embarrassment, despite Garley's claim that he threw it towards a trash can and did not intend to hit anyone. The appellate court found no clear error in the trial judge's findings, noting that the trial judge is in a better position to evaluate witness credibility. Given Garley's anger, profanity, and the act of throwing the hamburger while looking at England, the totality of the evidence provided a substantial basis for the trial judge to conclude that Garley must have been substantially certain the hamburger would hit or splatter on England. Therefore, the contact was intentional and unpermitted, constituting a battery, and mental distress and humiliation are compensable damages.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the breadth of 'intent' in intentional torts, establishing that it encompasses not only direct desire but also 'substantial certainty' of a particular outcome. It illustrates that actual physical injury is not a prerequisite for a battery claim, as humiliation and embarrassment stemming from offensive contact are compensable damages. The ruling also underscores the significant deference appellate courts grant to trial courts' factual findings, especially concerning witness credibility, making it difficult to overturn such judgments unless clear error is demonstrated.
