Rehearing Denied October 8, Bernard Kramer, Alexandria, for applicant. The court of appeal affirmed for the same reasons.
Supreme Court of Louisiana. Attorney s appearing for the Case Bernard Kramer, Alexandria, for applicant. The court of appeal affirmed for the same reasons. A harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause him to suffer such a contact, is a battery.
An office Christmas party was planned for Caudle v betts afternoon of December 23, Shortly before the party some of the employees engaged in horseplay with an electric automobile condenser.
Once charged, the condenser would deliver a slight electric shock when touched at both ends. Several employees played catch with the charged condenser. Peter Betts, the president and principal shareholder of the dealership, joined in the activity.
Caudle testified that following the incident he developed a headache and left the party early. In the following months Caudle had frequent and severe headaches and passed out thirty to forty times.
Conservative treatment in the form of nerve blocking shots was ineffective in permanently correcting these problems. After a bench trial, the district court found that Mr. Betts intended to shock Mr. Caudle but did not intend to injure him beyond a momentary, unpleasant jolt.
As a general rule, the rights and remedies granted to an employee therein are exclusive of all rights and remedies against his employer, any officer or principal of the employer, or any co-employee. We concluded that in drawing a line between intentional and unintentional acts the legislative aim was to make use of the well established division between intentional torts and negligence.
In Bazley this court briefly explained the basic difference between an intentional tort and a negligent act but did not profess to set forth a complete exposition of either branch of tort law.
Intentional tort law encompasses far more than could be explicated reasonably in a single opinion. Consequently, when an employee seeks to recover from his employer for an intentional tort, a court must apply the legal precepts of general tort law related to the particular intentional tort alleged in order to determine whether he has proved his cause of action and damages recoverable thereunder.
From this the trial court concluded that no intentional tort occurred, and the court of appeal affirmed its judgment. Consequently, in reviewing those rulings we must decide whether a battery was committed and, if so, whether damages are recoverable under battery for the unintended and unforseeable occipital nerve injury.
A harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause the plaintiff to suffer such a contact, is a battery.
Sheriff of Lafourche Parish, So. Miller Oil Purchasing Co.
The intention need not be malicious nor need it be an intention to inflict actual damage. The original purpose of the courts in providing the action for battery undoubtedly was to keep the peace by affording a substitute for private retribution. The element of personal indignity involved always has been given considerable weight.
Consequently, the defendant is liable not only for contacts that do actual physical harm, but also for those relatively trivial ones which are merely offensive and insulting. The intent with which tort liability is concerned is not necessarily a hostile intent, or a desire to do any harm.Listing of Railway Workers in Nova Scotia from MacAlpine Directory.
Compiled by Jay Underwood. You are visitor number since 11 March NOTES: Because this directory was not an official census, people were not obliged to answer fully. Victoria Cross at Sea - WW2 Campaign Summary.
View Test Prep - Caudle v. Betts from TORTS I 1 at Southern University and A&M College. Caudle v. Betts, Et Al., So. 2d (La.
) FACTS: Plaintiff [Caudle] was employed as a salesman at a%(2). All surnames beginning with _, sorted alphabetically (total individuals): Click on a surname to show matching records. Main surname page | Show all surnames.
Listed by the names by which they were known at East, if available. Click on to go to that person's profile. Be sure to take note of those new to our pages. New participants' names are. 2, miler listing. Section-hikers and thru-hikers who complete the entire A.T.
can report their journeys to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy by filling out the Appalachian Trail 2,Miler Application.