## Facts

- Eusebio Villa and Michael Derouen were co-employees at M.A. Patout & Sons, Inc. in Iberia Parish, Louisiana.
- On May 7, 1986, Villa was welding while Derouen worked beside him using a cutting torch.
- Derouen turned toward Villa and discharged the torch in Villa’s direction as one-sided “horseplay.”
- Villa suffered second-degree burns to his groin area caused by Derouen’s actions.
- Derouen admitted on cross-examination that he intentionally placed the torch between Villa’s legs and intended to spray oxygen between Villa’s legs when he did so.
- Villa was hospitalized and later reported psychological symptoms (including anxiety and depression) associated with the incident.

## Issues

1. Whether a co-employee’s deliberate act of placing a cutting torch between another employee’s legs and intentionally discharging gas constitutes an intentional tort (battery) under Louisiana law.
2. Whether proof of such a battery removes the claim from workers’ compensation exclusivity and permits tort recovery against the co-employee and his insurer.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for Derouen and his homeowner’s insurer.
- The court held the jury was manifestly erroneous in finding no intentional tort.
- The court concluded that Derouen’s conduct constituted an intentional tort—specifically, a battery—because the offensive contact was intentional even if the extent of injury was not intended.
- The court awarded damages to Villa based on the physical burns and resulting consequences.

## Legal Principles

- Louisiana workers’ compensation generally provides the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries against employers and co-employees, except when the injury is caused by an “intentional act.”
- For intentional tort analysis, intent may be shown where the actor desires the consequences of the act or believes the consequences are substantially certain to result.
- Battery is established by intentional harmful or offensive contact; intent to cause the specific degree of injury is not required when the contact itself is deliberate and directed at the person.
- A jury finding may be reversed under manifest error review when the record establishes intentional, directed contact as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that Derouen’s admitted, deliberate torch contact aimed at Villa’s groin constituted a battery and therefore an “intentional act” exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity, requiring reversal of the defense verdict and an award of tort damages.


Villa v. Derouen, 614 So. 2d 714 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993)