## Facts

- Butler Watts was dissatisfied with repair work done on his car and returned to an automobile agency in Shreveport, Louisiana, to complain.
- An argument arose between Watts and Robert B. Baker, Jr., an employee at the agency, while Baker was at his workplace.
- During the dispute, Baker struck Watts twice in the face; Watts fell to the floor and was unconscious for several minutes.
- Testimony conflicted on whether Watts cursed or threatened Baker and whether Watts drew back his fist as if to strike Baker before Baker hit him.
- Watts sued Baker for damages for battery and also sued Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the liability insurer connected to Baker’s employment.
- A jury found for Watts and awarded damages (described in secondary summaries as about $27,500).
- Baker and Aetna appealed, challenging liability and the amount of damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury had a reasonable evidentiary basis to find Baker was the aggressor and that Baker’s force was not justified as self-defense (or was excessive even if Watts provoked the dispute).
2. Whether the judgment against Aetna could stand with the finding of Baker’s tort liability arising from the workplace altercation.
3. Whether the jury’s damages award was so high as to require appellate reduction or reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Watts.
- It held the jury could reasonably resolve the conflicting testimony by finding Baker struck Watts first and used unjustified or excessive force.
- It declined to disturb the damages award, finding no basis to treat the jury’s assessment as an abuse of discretion.
- Because Baker’s liability was affirmed, the judgment against Aetna likewise remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- A battery is not excused by self-defense unless the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary and used only the amount of force reasonably required under the circumstances; excessive force results in liability.
- When testimony conflicts about who initiated an altercation or whether threats occurred, those are credibility and fact questions for the jury; an appellate court will not reweigh them absent manifest error.
- A damages award for personal injury is reviewed with substantial deference to the trier of fact; an appellate court intervenes only when the award is beyond the factfinder’s discretion in light of the evidence.
- Where an insurer is cast in judgment alongside the tort defendant and the tort judgment is affirmed, the insurer’s liability generally follows the affirmed finding of tort liability within the case’s pleadings and proof.

## Conclusion

Watts v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company affirms a jury verdict for an auto-repair customer who was struck twice in the face by a dealership employee during a dispute over repairs, leaving the customer unconscious; the Louisiana Second Circuit upheld the jury’s resolution of conflicting testimony on aggression and self-defense, agreed the force could be found unjustified or excessive, and left undisturbed the jury’s damages award and the related judgment against the insurer.


Watts v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 309 So. 2d 402 (1975)