## Facts

- Alan and Amy Vick attended a mud track automobile race (the Calhoun Mud Bowl) in Calhoun, Louisiana.
- Brothers Terry and Barry Pankey attended the same event.
- Alan became intoxicated and used obscene, insulting language, which angered the Pankeys.
- A physical confrontation followed. The Pankeys contended Alan’s words and conduct provoked the encounter and that they acted in self-defense.
- The incident was captured on video and was important to the fact finder’s evaluation of who was retreating, who was the aggressor, and whether the force used was reasonable.
- The fact finder determined that Terry attempted to punch Alan, and Alan backed away, appearing to retreat.
- Barry then punched Alan in the face multiple times as Alan continued moving backward.
- After Alan fell to the ground, Barry continued punching him while he was down.
- Alan sustained extensive facial fractures and shattered facial bones requiring surgical repair with multiple titanium plates and 27 screws; he was blind for about two weeks, his mouth was wired shut during recovery, and he missed weeks of work.
- The Vicks sued the Pankeys for damages arising from the battery. A jury returned a verdict for the Vicks and awarded damages without reducing for Alan’s comparative fault.
- Barry Pankey appealed, challenging liability (including self-defense/provocation), the lack of comparative-fault reduction, and the amount of damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find that Barry Pankey committed a battery and did not act in lawful self-defense.
2. Whether the jury (and resulting judgment) erred by failing to reduce damages based on Alan Vick’s comparative fault under Louisiana law.
3. Whether the damage awards were so high as to constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, affirmed the judgment.
- The court found no manifest error in the jury’s acceptance of the Vicks’ version of events and its rejection of Barry’s self-defense claim, particularly given evidence that Alan was retreating and that Barry continued striking Alan after Alan fell.
- The court upheld the jury’s fault allocation, leaving damages unreduced for comparative fault.
- The court held the damages award was within the broad discretion afforded to the fact finder given the severity of Alan’s injuries and their effects.

## Legal Principles

- Civil battery involves intentional, harmful or offensive contact; consent, provocation, and self-defense are fact-dependent defenses.
- In a civil battery case, self-defense requires a reasonable belief of imminent danger and the use of force that is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances; force may not be excessive and should stop when the threat ends.
- Louisiana comparative fault principles (La. Civ. Code art. 2323) permit allocation of fault among persons whose conduct caused or contributed to the injury, but the allocation depends on factual findings about conduct and causation.
- Appellate review of factual findings by a jury is highly deferential under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard, especially on credibility determinations and conflicting evidence.
- General damages are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court will not disturb an award that falls within a reasonable range based on the particular injuries and their consequences.

## Conclusion

In Vick v. Pankey, the Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed a jury verdict holding Barry Pankey liable for battering Alan Vick at a mud-race event, rejecting claims of self-defense and provocation-based fault reduction where evidence supported findings that Vick was retreating and that Barry used excessive force by continuing to strike him after he fell, and also affirming substantial damages in light of severe, surgically repaired facial injuries and related losses.


Vick v. Pankey, 15 So. 3d 1199 (2009)