Richard v. Mangion
535 So. 2d 414 (La. Ct. App. 1988)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiffs, the parents of a child who was injured in a fight, appealed an order of the court (Louisiana), which dismissed the parents' personal injury action against defendant insurance holders, who were the parents of the other child involved in the fight, and defendant insurer.
FACTS:
-The parents' minor son injured his eye during a fistfight with the insureds' minor son.
-The parents brought suit against the insureds and the insurer to recover medical expenses.
-The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the parents' son consented to the fight.
-On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment.
HOLDING
The defense of consent operated as a bar to recovery for the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive touching of the victim.
ANALYSIS
Consent could be expressed or implied and, if implied, it had to be determined on the basis of reasonable appearances.
-When a person voluntarily participated in an altercation, he could not recover for the injuries that he incurred, unless force in excess of that necessary was used and its use was not reasonably anticipated. -The evidence showed that the parents' minor son left the safety of his home to meet the insureds' son to fight. Both boys exchanged blows and neither used a weapon.
-The fact that the insureds' son threw the first punch did not vitiate the parents' minor son's consent to the fight.
RULES
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment dismissing the parents' suit for injuries their minor son sustained in a fistfight.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
535 So. 2d 414 (La. Ct. App. 1988)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiffs, the parents of a child who was injured in a fight, appealed an order of the court (Louisiana), which dismissed the parents' personal injury action against defendant insurance holders, who were the parents of the other child involved in the fight, and defendant insurer.
FACTS:
-The parents' minor son injured his eye during a fistfight with the insureds' minor son.
-The parents brought suit against the insureds and the insurer to recover medical expenses.
-The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the parents' son consented to the fight.
-On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment.
HOLDING
The defense of consent operated as a bar to recovery for the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive touching of the victim.
ANALYSIS
Consent could be expressed or implied and, if implied, it had to be determined on the basis of reasonable appearances.
-When a person voluntarily participated in an altercation, he could not recover for the injuries that he incurred, unless force in excess of that necessary was used and its use was not reasonably anticipated. -The evidence showed that the parents' minor son left the safety of his home to meet the insureds' son to fight. Both boys exchanged blows and neither used a weapon.
-The fact that the insureds' son threw the first punch did not vitiate the parents' minor son's consent to the fight.
RULES
| The defense of consent operates as a bar to recovery for the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive touchings of the victim. Consent may be expressed or implied; if implied, it must be determined on the basis of reasonable appearances. When a person voluntarily participates in an altercation, he may not recover for the injuries which he incurs, unless force in excess of that necessary is used and its use is not reasonably anticipated. The use of unnecessary and unanticipated force vitiates the consent. |
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment dismissing the parents' suit for injuries their minor son sustained in a fistfight.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment