## Facts

- On October 31, 1981, three minors went trick-or-treating: Jeffrey Scott Trammel (15), Robert Martin Landry, Jr. (13), and Daniel Breaux (13).
- Around 6:30 p.m., Trammel and Breaux approached Robert J. Bouton’s front door and rang the doorbell; Landry stayed on the sidewalk.
- When Bouton opened the door, he saw Breaux wearing military fatigues and holding a plastic model submachine gun.
- Bouton closed and locked the door, obtained a .357 magnum pistol, and then reopened the door.
- Bouton alleged he then saw a flash of light caused by Trammel’s camera flash, and Bouton’s pistol discharged, killing Breaux.
- Bouton was indicted on two counts of second-degree murder arising from the incident and was later acquitted.
- After acquittal, Bouton sued the boys’ liability insurers, alleging the boys’ conduct constituted assault or negligence and caused his prosecution, attorney’s fees, job loss, and adverse publicity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for one insurer and sustained another insurer’s peremptory exception of no cause of action; Bouton appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the boys’ Halloween conduct (costume, toy gun, and camera flash) constituted a civil assault by placing Bouton in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.
2. Whether the boys were legally negligent under Louisiana’s duty-risk analysis, including whether any duty they owed encompassed the risk of Bouton’s shooting and subsequent prosecution-related damages.
3. Whether summary judgment and the exception of no cause of action were properly granted based on Bouton’s allegations and the evidentiary record.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings in favor of both insurers.
- The court held the alleged conduct did not constitute assault because a reasonable person, in the Halloween trick-or-treating context, would not have had a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.
- The court held there was no legal negligence because the defendants did not owe a duty encompassing the risk that customary Halloween behavior would foreseeably prompt a homeowner to shoot and then suffer prosecution-related harms.
- Accordingly, there was no genuine issue of material fact for liability as to the insurer granted summary judgment, and the petition failed to state a cause of action as to the insurer granted the exception.

## Legal Principles

- Civil assault requires an intentional act that would place a person in reasonable apprehension of receiving an imminent battery; subjective fear without objective reasonableness is insufficient.
- Under Louisiana duty-risk analysis, liability requires a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the duty’s scope includes the particular risk that occurred; extraordinary reactions outside that scope do not create legal negligence.
- Social context may inform both objective reasonableness (assault) and the scope of duty and foreseeability (negligence), including customary conduct associated with widely recognized events.

## Conclusion

The court held that children’s customary Halloween trick-or-treating behavior—even involving a toy gun and a camera flash—did not amount to assault or actionable negligence, and therefore their liability insurers were not responsible for the homeowner’s claimed prosecution-related and economic damages.


Bouton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 491 So. 2d 56 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986)