Landry v. Bellanger
851 So. 2d 943, 2003 WL 21152531 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Louisiana's aggressor doctrine, which previously served as a complete bar to recovery for a plaintiff who provoked a physical confrontation, is abolished and replaced by comparative fault principles. However, self-defense remains a complete privilege that justifies an intentional tort, absolving the defendant of all liability if the force used was not excessive and was in response to an actual or reasonably apparent threat.
Facts:
- Byron Landry and Luke Bellanger, who were high school classmates, were drinking at a local bar for several hours.
- Landry, who was intoxicated, became belligerent and began to verbally harass and insult Bellanger.
- Despite Bellanger's repeated requests to be left alone, Landry's aggression escalated.
- Inside the bar, Landry poked Bellanger in the chest and threatened to take him outside to fight.
- Bellanger asked Landry to go outside, hoping to de-escalate the situation.
- In the parking lot, Landry physically confronted Bellanger by pushing him with his chest while continuing to threaten him.
- In response, Bellanger struck Landry a single time with a partially closed fist.
- Landry fell backwards, struck his head on the concrete pavement, and sustained a severe brain injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Byron Landry sued Luke Bellanger in a Louisiana state trial court for intentional tort (battery).
- The trial court found in favor of Landry, ruling that Bellanger was the aggressor and that Landry's fault could not reduce his damage award under Civil Code Article 2323(C).
- Bellanger, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The court of appeal reversed the trial court's ruling on damages, finding that Landry's fault was intentional and not protected by Article 2323(C), and apportioned fault at 50% to Landry and 50% to Bellanger.
- Bellanger then petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Louisiana's pure comparative fault regime, does the 'aggressor doctrine' remain a complete bar to a plaintiff's recovery for battery, and is a defendant who acts in self-defense still shielded from all liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Victory
No, the aggressor doctrine is no longer a complete bar to recovery, but yes, self-defense remains a complete shield from liability. The aggressor doctrine is inconsistent with Louisiana's pure comparative fault system as mandated by Civil Code Article 2323, which requires a comparison of fault among all responsible parties. The doctrine's 'all-or-nothing' approach is a vestige of contributory negligence, which has been abolished. However, self-defense is a distinct legal privilege that justifies the defendant's conduct, rendering him without fault. Article 2323(C), which prevents a negligent plaintiff's recovery from being reduced, does not apply here because Landry's fault was intentional, not merely negligent. Conducting a de novo review, the court found that Landry's verbal provocations escalated to a physical confrontation when he poked and pushed Bellanger. Bellanger's single punch was a reasonable, non-excessive response to an actual threat, constituting justifiable self-defense and relieving him of all liability.
Dissenting - Justice Kimball
No, the aggressor doctrine is not a complete bar, and no, the defendant's actions were not justified by self-defense. While agreeing that the aggressor doctrine is abolished, the dissent argues the majority erred by conducting a de novo review and disregarding the trial court's credibility findings. The trial court was best positioned to determine that the extremely intoxicated Landry did not pose a credible threat to Bellanger and that Bellanger's testimony about being threatened was not believable. Bellanger's punch was excessive force in response to a chest bump from an inebriated man. By finding Bellanger's actions were privileged self-defense, the majority effectively resurrects the aggressor doctrine under a new name, creating the same 'all-or-nothing' outcome it claims to abolish. The proper approach would be to compare the intentional fault of both parties.
Analysis:
This landmark decision officially abolishes the judicially-created 'aggressor doctrine' in Louisiana, fully integrating fault assessment for provocative plaintiffs into the state's statutory pure comparative fault system. It clarifies that while a plaintiff's provocation will now reduce (rather than bar) recovery, the traditional privilege of self-defense remains a complete defense, distinct from comparative fault analysis. The decision also narrowly construes La. C.C. art. 2323(C), holding that its protection against damage reduction applies only to negligent plaintiffs, not those whose own fault is intentional, thereby preventing intentional tortfeasors from using the statute as both a sword and a shield.
