Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Caudle v. Betts, 512 So. 2d 389.

133 citing documents.

Lillie Craft v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Paul Bruner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
(citations omitted) (emphasis added), the supreme court discussed the element of intent for the tort of battery as follows: A harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause the plaintiff to suffer such a contact, is a battery.
Craft v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 856 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
(citations omitted) (emphasis added), the supreme court discussed the element of intent for the tort of battery as follows: A harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause the plaintiff to suffer such a contact, is a battery.
Landry v. Bellanger 851 So. 2d 943 La. 2003
Domingue Ex Rel. Domingue v. Allied 849 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co. 837 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Cole v. Department of Public Safety 825 So. 2d 1134 La. 2002
In support of his position, (La.
Landry v. Bellanger 813 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Ott v. LPK Systems, Inc. 812 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Thus, when a company officer administered an electric shock to a worker, intending to play a good-natured practical *43 joke, yet nonetheless producing serious injury to the victim, the Supreme Court held the actor liable for all consequences flowing from his act.
Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co. 809 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Smith v. Roussel 809 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Lott v. St. Martin Parish School Bd. 784 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Johnson v. English 779 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Lowery v. Savana, 33,384 (La.App.2d Cir.5/10/00), ; Lawrence v. Security Professionals, 32,325 (La.App.2d Cir.8/18/99), , writ denied 99-2727 (La.11/24/99), .
Livaccari v. Alden Engineering, Inc. 808 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Araujo v. Eitmann 762 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Lawrence v. Security Professionals, 32,325 (La.App.
Belgard v. American Freightways, Inc. 755 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Lawson v. Straus 750 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Lawson v. Straus, 673 So.2d at 226 [].
Minkler v. Chumley 747 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Lawrence v. Security Professionals 743 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Lowrey v. Pettit 737 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Frame v. Comeaux 735 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems 731 So. 2d 208 La. 1999
[2] where we held that "when an employee seeks to recover from his employer for an intentional tort, a court must apply the legal precepts of general tort law related to the particular intentional tort alleged in order to determine whether he has proved his cause of action and damages recoverable thereunde
Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Serv., Inc. 730 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Boseman v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 727 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Mattingly v. Sportsline, Inc. 720 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
However, our Supreme Court has defined battery a§ “a harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause the plaintiff to suffer such contact.” at 391 (La.1987).
Guarino v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical 712 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
in support of his argument that an intentional tort was committed by Le-Blanc.
Allen v. Payne & Keller Co., Inc. 710 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Louviere v. Huey P. Long Medical Center 697 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
the supreme court identified the elements of a battery which must be proven in a civil suit.
Jackson v. Frisard 685 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Robinson v. Dunn 683 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Miller v. Couvillion 676 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
in which the supreme court explained the meaning of an intentional act arising in the context of a battery occurring as the result of a practical joke.
Ponthier v. Brown's Mfg., Inc. 671 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Lawson v. Straus 673 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Martin v. Bigner 665 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Bradley v. Morton Thiokol, Inc. 661 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Michelli v. Michelli 655 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Lopinto v. Tessier 637 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
McKee v. Inspectorate America Corp. 636 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Weber v. State 635 So. 2d 188 La. 1994
Vallery v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 630 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Montalvo v. Sondes 625 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Gauthier v. O'BRIEN 618 So. 2d 825 La. 1993
Charia v. Hulse 619 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
the Supreme Court differentiated between the unintentional and intentional tort.
Adams v. Time Saver Stores, Inc. 615 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Weber v. State 608 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
the Louisiana Supreme Court elaborated on its holding in Bazley, supra, to-wit: ...
Villa v. Derouen 614 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
A as, "[a] harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause the plaintiff to suffer such a contact...."
Poret v. Wilson 612 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Alvarado v. Doe 613 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Boatner v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc. 609 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
23:1032 provides that the rights and remedies granted to an employee under the Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Act “should be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employee ...” but that the liability of an employer to an employee would not be affected by an “intentional act.” the Supreme Court concluded that an employer’s intentional administration of an electrical shock as a practical joke on an employee did not render the employer immune from tort liability.
Armstead v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc. 609 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Brown v. Diversified Hospitality Group, Inc. 600 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
White v. Monsanto Co., supra .; Dycus v. Martin Marietta Corp., supra .