Intentional Tort Of Battery Essay

1778 Words 7 Pages
In Louisiana, Lillie would be able to recover under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315, which states in pertinent part “Every act whatever of man which causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” La. C.C. 2315 allows someone who has been wronged, to be compensated for the damage caused to him or her. In order to recover under La. C.C. art. 2315, an intentional tort must have been committed. In the present case, Joe has committed the intentional tort of battery. A battery is defined as harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause the plaintiff to suffer such a contact.
There are four elements of the intentional tort of battery. (1) There must be a voluntary, affirmative
…show more content…
The plaintiff then fell backwards and hit his head on the pavement. The defendant was charged with the intentional tort of battery. The Court in that case ruled that the defendant’s use of force was not excessive since the defendant, on numerous occasions, asked the plaintiff to calm down, and the plaintiff instead became physical with the defendant by pushing him. The court stated that since the plaintiff was intoxicated and belligerent towards the defendant it was reasonable for him to believe that the plaintiff was a reasonable threat therefore his force in defending himself was not …show more content…
The defendant may argue that Ms. Bonifant was loud and belligerent because she did not do well at her swim meet plus the fact that she consumed a shot of Jameson prior to the altercation. Because of this she already had a chip on her shoulder when Mr. Roper bumped her at the bar. Mr. Roper may try to argue that Ms. Bonifant’s behavior towards him was like the plaintiff’s behavior in Landry. However the plaintiff in Landry became physical with the defendant first. In the present case Mr. Roper was the first to initiate physical contact with Ms. Bonifant by pushing her into the bar.
He also was the one who grabbed her by the wrist without her ever laying a hand on him. Mr. Roper is the aggressor in our present case, unlike the Landry case, where the plaintiff was the aggressor and the defendant was acting in self-defense. Mr. Roper may argue that Ms. Bonifant was the aggressor since she was loud, belligerent and threatened him. However the court in Touchet v. Hampton 729, 1 So.3d (La.App.3d Cir. 2008) ruled that mere words designed to irritate does not constitute consent to a

Related Documents