Villa v. Derouen
614 So. 2d 714 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentional act that causes an offensive or harmful contact with another person constitutes a battery, even if the actor did not intend to cause the resulting physical harm and only intended the act as a prank. The intent required is the intent to cause the contact, not the intent to cause the specific injury that results from that contact.
Facts:
- Eusebio Villa and Michael Derouen were co-employees at M.A. Patout & Sons.
- On May 7, 1986, while both men were working, Derouen engaged in horseplay by taking his torch and blowing pressurized oxygen behind Villa's neck and into his face shield.
- A third co-employee, Troy Mitchell, warned Derouen to stop because it could ignite, and Villa also told Derouen to stop fooling around.
- A few minutes later, while Villa was crouched and welding with his protective hood down, Derouen pointed his cutting torch between Villa's legs.
- Derouen intentionally discharged the torch, aiming to spray Villa with oxygen to get his attention.
- The pressurized gas from Derouen's torch ignited and caused second-degree burns to Villa's groin area.
Procedural Posture:
- Eusebio Villa sued his co-employee, Michael Derouen, and Derouen's homeowner's insurer in a Louisiana trial court for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict finding that Derouen did not commit an intentional tort.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, Derouen and his insurer.
- Villa, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, against Derouen and his insurer, as appellees.
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 co-employee's act of intentionally spraying a colleague with pressurized gas from a torch, intended as a prank to get his attention, constitute an intentional tort (battery) for the purposes of the worker's compensation exception, even if the resulting burn injury was unintentional?
Opinions:
Majority - Saunders, Judge
Yes. An employee's intentional act of directing an offensive contact toward a co-employee constitutes an intentional tort, specifically a battery, even if the actor did not intend to cause the resulting physical harm. The court found that to constitute a battery, the actor only needs to intend the offensive contact, not the actual damages that result. Citing Caudle v. Betts, the court explained that the intent for a battery is not necessarily a hostile intent but rather an intent to bring about a result that invades the interests of another, which can include a good-natured practical joke. Here, Derouen admitted he intended to spray Villa with oxygen to get his attention. Given the noise of the welding environment, Derouen must have intended for Villa to feel the contact. This intent to cause an unconsented, offensive contact is sufficient to establish a battery, making the intentional tort exception to worker's compensation applicable. The jury erred by improperly focusing on whether Derouen intended to burn Villa, rather than on whether he intended the initial offensive contact.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between intent to act and intent to harm within tort law, particularly in the context of the intentional tort exception to worker's compensation exclusivity. By focusing on the intent to make contact, the court lowers the threshold for an injured employee to sue a co-worker for acts of horseplay that result in injury. The ruling clarifies that a defendant's subjective belief that their actions were a harmless prank is irrelevant if they intended the offensive physical contact. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to escape tort liability for workplace pranks that go wrong by claiming they did not intend the specific, harmful outcome.
Unlock the full brief for Villa v. Derouen