Richard v. Mangion
535 So. 2d 414 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who voluntarily participates in an altercation impliedly consents to the reasonably foreseeable physical contact and resulting injuries, and is barred from recovering damages for battery unless the other participant uses force that is excessive or of a nature not reasonably anticipated.
Facts:
- Animosity developed between Shawn Richard, 13, and Jeremy Mangion, 14, after Jeremy made a derogatory comment about Shawn's pants and kicked him at a school bus stop.
- Several days before the main altercation, Jeremy confronted Shawn again at the bus stop, where Jeremy kicked Shawn in the groin after a brief standoff.
- On May 8, 1985, there was widespread talk among their peers that the two boys were scheduled to fight at 4:30 p.m. at a local hangout known as the 'rope swing.'
- A classmate went to Jeremy's house to tell him Shawn was waiting at the rope swing.
- The same classmate then went to Shawn's house and told him that Jeremy was waiting for him.
- Shawn decided to go to the rope swing to 'get it over with,' acknowledging that he was fully aware there might be a fight.
- During the ensuing fistfight, Jeremy put Shawn in a headlock and hit him multiple times in the head and face.
- After Jeremy pushed him into a ditch, Shawn got up and charged at Jeremy again, at which point Jeremy delivered a final punch to Shawn's eye, causing significant injury.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Juanita Richard, individually and on behalf of their minor son Shawn, filed suit against Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Mangion and their insurer in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
- The plaintiffs, James and Juanita Richard, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third 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 a person who voluntarily goes to a pre-arranged location for a fistfight impliedly consent to the reasonably foreseeable injuries, thereby barring recovery for battery?
Opinions:
Majority - Doucet, J.
No. A person who voluntarily participates in a fistfight consents to the reasonably foreseeable injuries and is therefore barred from recovery for battery, provided the force used was not excessive or of a type that could not be reasonably anticipated. The court reasoned that consent to an intentional tort can be implied from conduct. By knowingly going to a pre-arranged location for a fight, Shawn implied his willingness to engage in the altercation and accept the risk of being struck. When two parties mutually agree to fight, it is irrelevant who strikes the first blow. The court found that the force used by Jeremy—punches with a fist and a headlock—was not excessive or unanticipated for a fistfight. The court explicitly stated that peer pressure, while significant, does not legally negate consent.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the 'consent' defense in the context of mutual combat for intentional torts like battery. It clarifies that consent can be implied from a plaintiff's actions, such as knowingly showing up for a pre-arranged fight. The decision establishes that in such cases, courts will not parse who was the initial aggressor or who struck the first blow. It also sets a relatively high bar for what constitutes 'excessive force,' suggesting that serious injuries resulting from standard fighting techniques, without the use of weapons, do not automatically vitiate consent.
Unlock the full brief for Richard v. Mangion