Case Name: Doris HEMSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Florence SIMS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-01-09
Citations: 325 So. 2d 877
Docket Number: No. 12782
Parties: Doris HEMSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Florence SIMS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BOLIN, PRICE and HALL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 325
Pages: 877–879

Head Matter:
Doris HEMSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Florence SIMS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12782.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Jan. 9, 1976.
Rehearing Denied, En Banc, Feb. 9, 1976.
Writ Refused March 23, 1976.
Claudius E. Whitmeyer by Alex Ruben-stein, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rothell, Lawson & Robinson by John M. Robinson, Mansfield, for defendant-appel-lee.
Before BOLIN, PRICE and HALL, JJ.
Hall, J., dissented.

Opinion:
BOLIN, Judge.
Doris Hemsley sued Florence Sims for damages allegedly resulting from an unprovoked battery inflicted upon plaintiff by defendant at approximately 6:00 a. m., on September 12, 1974. Trial was had before a jury resulting in a verdict rejecting plaintiff's demands. From a formal judgment rendered pursuant to this verdict plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
The altercation between plaintiff and defendant occurred at the residence of their mutual boyfriend. It is conceded plaintiff and defendant had a physical encounter and that defendant was the apparent victor. Plaintiff's injuries included bruises and lacerations and a broken nose.
The primary issue before the lower court and this court is whether plaintiff's injuries were the result of an unprovoked assault and battery committed by defendant.
The law is well settled that in an action for assault and battery a plaintiff may not recover damages if she is found to have been at fault in provoking the difficulty in which the injury is received. Wilkins v. Nugent, 108 So.2d 5 (La.App.2d Cir. 1958). The burden is upon the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the battery occurred and that defendant was the aggressor or that defendant used excessive force under the circumstances. Middleton v. Shaw, 271 So.2d 358 (La.App.2d Cir. 1972); Lavergne v. Hoffpauir, 306 So.2d 462 (La.App.3d Cir. 1975).
It being conceded the trial judge correctly charged the jury as to the law, the only question on appeal is one of fact. From our review of the record we find sufficient facts to support the jury verdict.
The judgment is affirmed at appellant's cost.
HALL, J., dissents and reserves the right to assign written reasons.