## Facts

- Shawn Richard (13) and Jeremy Mangion (14) were neighborhood boys in Lafayette, Louisiana, with escalating hostility stemming from school-bus disputes and prior confrontations.
- Several days before the incident, the boys were involved in an earlier attempted fight; after posturing, Jeremy kicked Shawn in the groin.
- On May 8, 1985, Shawn went to an outdoor neighborhood location known as the “rope swing,” where a fight with Jeremy was expected to occur.
- The boys engaged in a fistfight in which both threw punches; no weapons were used.
- During the exchange, Jeremy struck Shawn in the right eye, causing hemorrhaging; Shawn later underwent two operations.
- Shawn’s parents incurred more than $15,000 in medical expenses and sued Jeremy, his parents, and their liability insurer for Shawn’s injuries and derivative damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Shawn’s participation in the altercation was voluntary so that he impliedly consented to the physical contact, barring recovery for battery.
2. Whether Jeremy used excessive or unnecessary force beyond the scope of any consent inherent in a mutual fistfight.
3. Whether the trial court’s factual findings on voluntariness and excessive force were clearly wrong under the applicable appellate standard of review.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit affirmed the judgment dismissing the Richards’ claims.
- The court upheld the finding that Shawn voluntarily participated in the prearranged fight and thus consented to ordinary contacts associated with fistfighting.
- The court upheld the finding that neither boy used excessive force; Jeremy’s conduct was consistent with mutual, unarmed fistfighting.
- Because consent barred the battery-based claim and no excessive force was proven, there was no liability for Jeremy, his parents, or the insurer.

## Legal Principles

- Consent is a defense to battery; a person who voluntarily engages in a mutual fistfight impliedly consents to the ordinary harmful or offensive contacts that are reasonably anticipated in that fight.
- Consent does not extend to conduct that exceeds its scope; liability may arise if a defendant uses force that is excessive, unexpected, or otherwise beyond what the plaintiff agreed to face.
- Peer pressure or social expectations, without more, do not negate voluntariness where the evidence supports that the participant chose to attend and fight.
- Appellate courts defer to trial-court factual findings and credibility determinations absent manifest error (clearly wrong findings).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because Shawn’s voluntary participation in a prearranged, unarmed fistfight implied consent to the ordinary contacts of the fight, and the evidence supported that Jeremy did not use excessive force beyond that consent.


Richard v. Mangion, 535 So. 2d 414 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988)