Touchet v. Hampton

950 So. 2d 895 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2007

Facts

Purvis Touchet, a former sales manager for Mark Hampton, had his employment terminated in the summer of 2002. In October 2002, Touchet made a phone call to Hampton, making fun of his business, and subsequently left several threatening voicemails, including threats of physical harm. On October 19, 2002, Hampton went to Touchet's new workplace, Jackie Edgar RV Center, but Touchet was not present. Hampton returned to the RV Center on October 22, 2002, intending to tell Touchet to stop harassing him. Hampton entered Touchet's office, where Touchet was sitting with his back to the door. An altercation ensued, during which Hampton struck Touchet multiple times. Touchet's co-worker intervened and pulled Hampton off Touchet, who then immediately left the premises.

Procedural history

The plaintiff, Purvis Touchet, filed a claim for battery against the defendant, Mark Hampton. A bench trial was held, and at the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for an involuntary dismissal on the issues of consent and self-defense. The trial court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to preclude self-defense. The plaintiff appealed the trial court's granting of the motion to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting an involuntary dismissal of the plaintiff's battery claim, finding that the defendant acted in self-defense? Did the plaintiff fail to present sufficient evidence to preclude the defendant's claim of self-defense?

Holding

The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment granting involuntary dismissal. The court found that the trial court's determination that the defendant acted in self-defense was manifestly erroneous. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Rule

An involuntary dismissal is proper if the plaintiff fails to prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court's decision is reviewed under the manifest error standard. To escape liability for battery, a defendant may prove self-defense, which requires an actual or reasonably apparent threat to safety and the use of non-excessive force. Mere words, even threatening ones, do not justify a battery, especially if spoken or written some time prior to the physical attack. Excessive force in repelling a threat negates a self-defense claim.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-10-06. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.