## Facts

- Vincent Castiglione and Edward Baradell were employees of the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans.
- The employees went to James J. Galpin’s home to tell him that his water service would be disconnected if he did not pay his delinquent water bill.
- After being told the water would be turned off for nonpayment, Galpin threatened to shoot the employees if they turned off the water.
- Galpin went inside his home, retrieved a shotgun, and returned to the front porch while the employees prepared to disconnect the water at the water main in the front yard.
- The employees testified that Galpin pointed the shotgun at them as they were preparing to shut off the water.
- Galpin admitted retrieving the shotgun, but denied pointing it; he claimed he held the gun across his lap while squatting.
- The employees sued Galpin for civil assault, alleging they were placed in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.
- The trial court rendered judgment for each employee in the amount of $750, and Galpin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Galpin committed an actionable civil assault by threatening to shoot the employees and then retrieving and displaying a shotgun while they were preparing to disconnect his water, thereby placing them in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.
2. Whether the trial court’s award of $750 to each plaintiff was excessive.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held that Galpin’s threats, combined with his possession and display of a shotgun at the time the employees were carrying out the shutoff, were sufficient to place the employees in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery and therefore constituted civil assault.
- The court held the $750 award to each plaintiff was not excessive and left the damages undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Words alone generally do not constitute a civil assault; however, threats can support liability when coupled with a present ability to carry out the threatened harm and when the conduct places the plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of receiving an injury (a battery).
- Civil assault does not require physical contact; the wrong is the creation of a reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
- Where a defendant makes explicit threats of bodily harm and then arms himself with a weapon in close proximity to the plaintiff during the threatened conduct, a factfinder may conclude the plaintiff’s apprehension was reasonable.
- Even if there is a factual dispute about whether the weapon was literally aimed at the plaintiff, the surrounding circumstances may still show reasonable apprehension sufficient for assault.
- On review of general damages for intentional torts such as assault, an appellate court will not disturb an award absent a showing that it is excessive under the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the Sewerage & Water Board employees, ruling that Galpin’s explicit threat to shoot them—followed immediately by his retrieval and visible possession of a shotgun while they were preparing to disconnect his water—was enough to place them in reasonable apprehension of a battery and thus amounted to a civil assault; the $750-per-plaintiff damages award was also affirmed as not excessive.


Castiglione v. Galpin, 325 So. 2d 725 (1976)