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
- 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.
- 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.