Touchet v Hampton, 1. So. 3d 729 (La App. 3d Cir. 2008)

casetext.com/case/touchet-v-hampton

1. This case involves the accusation of an intentional tort. What is the tort and how did it rise?
2. What findings of fact did the trial court reach about the messages that Touchet left on Hampton's answering machine?
3. According to the trial court, did Touchet consent to the "mortal combat" and what manner did that consent take?
4. Did the appellate court agree with the trial court's interpretation of state law? Why or why not?

TOUCHET V. HAMPTON 1 So. 3d 729 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2008) PICKETT, Judge. the dealership but subsequently returned to The plaintiff-appellant, Purvis Touchet, his former job position. He testified that his appeals a judgment of the trial court finding he employment was terminated during the sum- failed to prove that Mark Hampton, the defen- mer of 2002. dant, committed the intentional tort of battery According to Hampton, the parting was against him. amicable. However, he testified that in October 2002, he received a telephone call from Statement of the Case Touchet in which "he basically was sort of This is the second time this case has been making fun of our business because our busi- before this court on appeal. In the original ness had gone down." Hampton stated that appeal, the trial court granted Mr. Hampton's he hung up the telephone and that Touchet motion for an involuntary dismissal at the called back later that day. Hampton did not close of Mr. Touchet's presentation of evi- speak with him. Hampton testified that when dence based on a finding that Mr. Hampton he spoke with Touchet again, Touchet cursed acted in self-defense. Touchet v. Hampton, him, threatened him, and told him that he 06-1120 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 950 So. 2d knew where he lived. According to Hampton, 895. This court set forth the facts as follows: Touchet continued to call and when he did not The plaintiff, Purvis Touchet, was a sales answer, Touchet left him several threatening manager at Hampton Mitsubishi, a car dealer- voice mail messages, three of which were left ship owned by the defendant, Mark Hampton, on October 13, 2002. for approximately three years. Touchet testi- Hampton testified that on October 19; fied that he briefly left his employment with 2002, he went to Jackie Edgar RV Center,Touchet's place of employment, "because it your ass." Then there was a subsequent message was a public place, and I felt it was the saf- on that same date at 2:45 p.M. which, again, con- est place to talk to him." Touchet was not tained lots of threatening and offensive language, there. According to Hampton, he returned to the most significant of which was "Anytime you want to f-k with me, let me know." Jackie Edgar RV Center on October 22, 2002 Then there was another message that was to "tell Touchet to quit harassing me and to recorded-all these messages were recorded on ask him to stop calling me." Hampton asked a voice mail recording system on Hampton's if Touchet was in, and someone pointed him phone-this third message occurred, was deliv towards Touchet's office. Hampton testi- ered at 2:48 P.M., and, again, contains lots of offen- sive language, the most significant of which-the fied that when he entered Touchet's office, most significant because of his threat is: "Let me Touchet, whose back was to Hampton, quickly and you come meet me somewhere you [-king turned around in his chair and yelled "F-k piece of shit." you, Hampton." Hampton stated that he Then on Sunday, October 19, 2002, [sic] was startled and scared because it appeared Hampton visited Touchet at his place of employ- as if Touchet "was going to hit me, what he ment to tell Touchet to quit harassing Hampton and stop calling Hampton. Touchet's office said he was going to do." Hampton testified within his place of employment has glass walls. that he defended himself by hitting Touchet. When Hampton entered Touchet's office Touchet Although he did not know how many times was seated in his chair with the back of his chair he hit Touchet, Hampton surmised that the facing Hampton. Touchet rapidly turned his incident lasted approximately twenty seconds chair towards Hampton and yelled: "F-k you, Hampton." Then a consensual fistic encounter before Touchet's co-worker, David Raggette, occurred between Touchet and Hampton. David intervened and pulled Hampton off Touchet. Ragatta [sic] did not observe the events that Hampton immediately left the premises. immediately preceded this fistic encounter. This court found that the trial court com- So those are the factual findings. Now to the mitted manifest error by finding that Mr. analysis of those facts coupled with the applica- Hampton acted in self-defense and remanded ble law. Touchet's recorded phone messages to Hampton on the 13th of October 2002 constituted the case to allow the defendant to present evi- an offer from Touchet to Hampton to engage in dence. On remand, Mr. Hampton submitted mortal combat at a time and place to be chosen the deposition of Michael Reed, a friend of by either Touchet or Hampton. Touchet never Mr. Hampton. Mr. Reed accompanied Mr. recounted [sic] that offer, never terminated that Hampton to Mr. Touchet's workplace three offer. Touchet's assertion that this was a limited- time offer, limited in time specifically to the date days before the incident occurred and spoke of that offer, is incredulous and I do not believe it. with him after the incident occurred. The Touchet's actions once Hampton entered defense then rested. Touchet's office on 19 October 2002 constituted The trial court issued the following find- consent to commence mortal combat at that time ings of fact and oral reasons for ruling in open and place. Because Touchet consented to partic- ipate in a fight to the death, Hampton's actions court on January 29, 2008: during this fistic encounter were measured-were a measured response taken to prevent the signifi- This Court makes the following factual findings, cant harm of loss of life, and warns that these findings contain the offen- Given these findings of fact in this legal anal- sive utterances of the plaintiff. ysis this Court finds that Touchet failed to prove On Sunday, 13 October 2002, Touchet called that Hampton committed a battery. Hampton, Hampton's home on three separate occasions and in fact, consented-I'm sorry, Touchet, in fact. left threatening and offensive messages, The most consented to the harmful touching by Hampton significant portions of those messages are: the first who accepted Touchet's challenge and spared message that occurred on Sunday, October 13th Touchet's life. Hampton's force application was at 2:41 P.M. contained a significant amount of appropriate given the circumstances and not information, but the most significant was the fol- excessive. lowing language: "I am going to f-king murderDefenses to latentional Torts The trial court signed a judgment dismiss- We find that Mr. Touchet proved that Mr. ing Mr. Touchet's suit on February 22, 2008. Hampton committed the intentional tort of Mr. Touchet now appeals. battery. Therefore. we find that Mr. Hampton is liable for the damage suffered by Mr. Touched Assignments of Error At trial, Mr. Touchet claimed he suffered Mr. Touchet asserts two assignments of bruises and abrasion, neck pain, back pain. error: and severe headaches. Mr. Touchet submit- ted medical bills in the amount of $9,239.82, 1. The trial court's findings of fact are con- We award him that amount Mr. Toucher trary to the prior findings of the appellate also seeks damages for pain and suffering and court and are manifestly erroneous. for the embarrassment he suffered because 2. The trial court's finding that Purvis this incident occurred at his workplace with Touchet consented to Mark Hampton's co-workers and customers watching. We actions was manifestly erroneous. award Mr. Touchet $9,000.00 in general dam ages for his pain and suffering and $1,000.00 Discussion for his mental anguish and embarrassment. La. Civ. Code art. 2315, a person is liable for acts which cause damage to another. The Conclusion intentional tort of battery is "a harmful or We reverse the trial court's judgment in favor offensive contact with a person, resulting from of Mark Hampton finding that Purvis Touchet an act intended to cause the plaintiff to suffer did not prove lack of consent. We render judy such a contact." In a suit for damages result- ment in favor of Purvis Touchet and find that ing from an intentional tort, the claimant must Mark Hampton committed the intentional fort carry the burden of proving all prima facie of battery upon the person of Purvis Touchet. elements of the tort, including lack of consent We award medical damages of $9,239.82 and to the invasive conduct. Mere words will not general damages in the amount of $9,090.00 justify a battery. for pain and suffering and $1,000.00 for men- Here, we find the trial court erred in tal anguish and embarrassment. Costs of this finding that the threats and insults made appeal are assessed to Mark Hampton. by Mr. Touchet on Mr. Hampton's voice REVERSED AND RENDERED, mail constitute Mr. Touchet's consent to Mr. Hampton's actions nine days later. Mr. Questions about the case: Hampton sought out Mr. Touchet at his place of employment, entered Mr. Touchet's 1. This case involves the accusation of an office, and hit Mr. Touchet repeatedly until intentional fort. What is the tort and how Mr. Raggette pulled Mr. Hampton away. did it arise? Furthermore, nothing that Mr. Touchet did 2. What findings of fact did the trial court when Mr. Hampton entered his office can be reach about the messages that Touchet left considered consent. Turning around in his on Hampton's answering machine? chair, yelling an expletive at Mr. Hampton. 3. According to the trial court, did Touchet and beginning to stand up are not sufficient consent to the "mortal combat" and what provocations to rise to the level of giving manner did that consent take? consent to a battery. The trial court's oral 4. Did the appellate court agree with the trial reasons are not an accurate statement of court's interpretation of state law? Why or Louisiana law. why not