Case Name: Pamela YOUNG, et al. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1999-12-15
Citations: 759 So. 2d 800
Docket Number: No. 99-581
Parties: Pamela YOUNG, et al. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
Judges: BEFORE: THIBODEAUX, COOKS and WOODARD, Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 759
Pages: 800–806

Head Matter:
Pamela YOUNG, et al. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
No. 99-581.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1999.
Writ Denied March 17, 2000.
Chris Villemarette, Alexandria, LA, for Pamela P. Young, et al.
L. Lane Roy, Lafayette, LA, for St. Landry Parish School Board, et al.
BEFORE: THIBODEAUX, COOKS and WOODARD, Judges.

Opinion:
| t COOKS, Judge.
Pamela Young, individually and as ad-ministratrix of the estate of her minor son, Daniel Mark Prudhomme, appeals the judgment of the trial court which exonerated Mr. Anthony Fisher and his employer, the St. Landry Parish School Board, from liability for an alleged battery upon Daniel during school hours. For the following reasons, we affirm.
PACTS
On November 16,1995, at approximately 12:15 p.m., Daniel Prudhomme was in a French class taught by the defendant, Mr. Anthony Fisher. Daniel was an eleven-year-old sixth grade student at Central Middle School in Eunice, Louisiana.
During class that day, the students were viewing college yearbooks as part of a class assignment. Daniel was bothering a female student during the class activity and he was instructed by Mr. Fisher on more than one occasion to discontinue his | .Inappropriate behavior. When Daniel refused to cease misbehaving, Mr. Fisher approached him, grabbed his jacket collar, and pulled him away from the other students. At this point, the stories vary. Mr. Fisher alleges Daniel tripped on the leg of a nearby desk and accidentally fell to the floor. Daniel claims the force used by Mr. Fisher tore the collar of his windbreaker causing him to fall and injure himself. After the incident, Daniel returned to his desk for the remainder of the class.
Casselina Young, a student in the French class, witnessed the incident and testified as follows:
Q. Would you please tell the court what you saw and heard in the classroom that day, please?
A. Okay, the students were standing around and sitting down looking at yearbooks and Daniel kept bothering Crystal and Mr. Fisher told Daniel a couple of times to leave her alone but Daniel didn't listen to him and he continued to bother Crystal. Mr. Fisher got up, grabbed Daniel, and Daniel fell and Mr. Fisher helped him up.
Q. Okay. Now you heard Daniel testify here a little bit earlier?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Daniel, I think, indicated that there wasn't any particular statement made directly to him but to the whole class by Mr. Fisher. Would you tell me, and you were in the classroom, with Mr. Fisher directing his comments to Daniel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay, was Daniel doing something that he shouldn't have been doing?
A. He kept bothering Crystal.
Q. Okay, and Crystal was one of the other students in the classroom?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Daniel pay attention or did he follow the instructions of Mr. Fisher?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he change his activity in any way when Mr. Fisher asked him |¡¡not to?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you said that Mr. Fisher asked Daniel on two different occasions to stop what he was doing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it didn't make any difference?
A. No, sir.
Q. And after he did not follow Mr. Fisher's instruction, Mr. Fisher went toward him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did Mr. Fisher do at that point?
A. At that point he like pulled Daniel back and Daniel fell and he helped him up.
Q. Pulled Daniel away from —
A. Crystal.
Q. From Crystal, okay. It's been testified that Mr. Fisher may have picked Daniel up and thrown him to the ground. Did that happen?
A. No, sir.
Q. You said he — Mr. Fisher pulled Daniel away from Crystal and Daniel fell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what caused him to fall?
A. He could have hit the trash can but I'm not too sure about that.
Q. From what you saw, Ms. Young,—
A Yes.
Q. —did Mr. Fisher do anything that forced Daniel to fall?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did it appear to you that Mr. Fisher tried to cause him to fall?
|4A. No, sir.
The evening of the incident, Daniel's stepfather (Oleus Young) filed a battery complaint against Mr. Fisher. After an investigation, no charges were instituted. That same day, Daniel went to the emergency room for treatment, complaining he had tenderness over his lower back and right ankle. No bruising was evident, and x-rays of Daniel's lower back were unremarkable. No objective signs of injury were noted and no medication was prescribed. Over the course of the next year, Daniel underwent extensive medical treatment from a chiropractor.
Daniel's mother, Mrs. Pamela Young, filed suit against the St. Landry Parish School Board, Titan Indemnity Company and Anthony Fisher alleging the force used by Mr. Fisher on Daniel constituted a battery and that force caused Daniel to suffer serious and debilitating injuries. Mrs. Young later amended her petition for damages, deleting Titan and adding Core-gis Insurance Company as the liability insurer of the St. Landry Parish School Board.
After a bench trial, plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with prejudice. The trial court found the plaintiffs "failed to demonstrate that [Mr. Fisher] committed a battery on Daniel or that the physical force used by [Mr. Fisher] on Daniel was unreasonable under the circumstances." This appeal followed. Plaintiffs assert the following assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in failing to find Anthony Fisher committed a battery upon Daniel Prudhomme.
2. The trial court erred in finding Mr. Fisher was justified in committing a battery upon Daniel Prudhomme.
3. The trial court erred by finding for the defendants based on an affirmative defense which was not specifically pled.
4. The trial court erred by failing to award plaintiffs damages for the injuries sustained by Daniel Prud-homme.
IsLAW AND DISCUSSION
Factual findings by the trial court cannot be set aside in the absence of manifest error or unless the findings are clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). This court must review the record in its entirety to determine whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993).
In Jones on Behalf of Cooper v. W.T. Henning Elementary School Principal, 98-470, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98); 721 So.2d 530, 532, addressing the role of discipline in our schools, we stated:
The primary objective of school officials and teachers is the education of the young people in their charge. If a teacher, or principal, is unable to establish discipline and maintain an orderly learning environment, the objective of education cannot be met. In today's society, where educators must compete for their students' attention against numerous outside influences, there is a greater necessity to ensure that students are given the opportunity to learn in a positive and orderly environment free from distractions.
We have conducted our review of this matter in light of these objectives and conclude no error was committed by the trial court.
The parties first banter whether a battery was committed by Mr. Fisher against Daniel. Whether a battery was committed is not the dispositive question in this case. La.R.S. 17:223 grants teachers the discretion to use corporal punishment to maintain discipline in the classroom. It matters not whether Mr. Fisher's touching of Daniel constituted a battery because this statute provides:
A. Every teacher is authorized to hold every pupil to a strict accountability for any disorderly conduct in school or on the playground of a school, or on any school bus going to or returning from school, or during intermission or recess. Each parish and city school board shall have discretion in the use of corporal punishment....
Of course the use of corporal punishment must be "reasonable" in degree. The only question then is whether Mr. Fisher's grabbing of Daniel's collar in an effort to pull Ifihim away was unreasonable under the circumstances.
The trial court, after hearing the testimony of the witnesses, determined that the action taken by Mr. Fisher was protective discipline reasonable in nature. Daniel was creating a disturbance in the classroom, and refused to listen to the demands of his teacher to behave. Mr. Fisher grabbed Daniel's collar in an attempt to remove him from the vicinity of the other students and to restore order in the class. When "order" is disrupted in a classroom, it frustrates the learning process which every teacher has a duty to maintain. Mr. Fisher's did not intend to harm Daniel. We find no error in the trial court's conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove the physical force used by Mr. Fisher on Daniel was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Nonetheless, plaintiffs assert defendants' reliance on the discretionary use of corporal punishment was an affirmative defense which they were required to raise prior to trial. We disagree. An affirmative defense is one which raises new matter not covered in the plaintiffs petition and which will have the effect of defeating plaintiffs demand on its merits. Keller v. Amedeo, 512 So.2d 385 (La.1987). The general purpose in requiring certain defenses to be affirmatively pled is to give the plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defense, thus preventing a last minute surprise to the plaintiff. Trahan v. Gerber Food Products, Inc., 520 So.2d 956 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987), writ denied, 522 So.2d 563 (La.1988); Mashburn Agency v. Universal Engineering, 451 So.2d 113 (La.App. 3 Cir.1984).
Teachers by law are authorized to use reasonable force to maintain order in the classroom or on school grounds. Evidence that Mr. Fisher was authorized to grasp Daniel because he was attempting to maintain order in his classroom rebutted plaintiffs' claim that the physical force used by him was unreasonable under the circumstances. Defendants were not required to list as an affirmative defense that Mr. Fisher's actions were reasonable. In answer to plaintiffs' pleadings, which asserted 17Mr. Fisher used unreasonable force, defendants affirmatively denied that he did; that is all the rules of evidence demand they do and say prior to trial. This assignment of error lacks merit.
Having found the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' case with prejudice, plaintiffs' contention that the trial court erred by failing to award damages is rendered moot.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs-appellants.
AFFIRMED.
THIBODEAUX, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.