Michael J. Mestayer v. Michael J. Detraz, Jr.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 7, 2007
• Docket: CA-0006-0990
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

06-990

MICHAEL J. MESTAYER

VERSUS

MICHAEL J. DETRAZ, JR.

********** APPEAL FROM THE ABBEVILLE CITY COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 13889 HONORABLE CRAIG STEVE GUNNELL, CITY COURT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and Elizabeth A. Pickett, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Anthony Jerome Fontana, Jr. 210 North Washington Street Abbeville, LA 70510 Telephone: (337) 898-8332 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellant - Michael J. Mestayer

Calvin Eugene Woodruff, Jr. Cooper & Woodruff 111 Concord Street - Suite A Abbeville, LA 70510-4617 Telephone: (337) 898-8530 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Michael J. Detraz, Jr. Thibodeaux, Chief Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Michael Mestayer (Mr. Mestayer), appeals the judgment of the

trial court dismissing his personal injury claim against the defendant, Michael Detraz

(Mr. Detraz), based on injuries inflicted against him by Mr. Detraz in a barroom fight.

The trial court, in its written reasons for judgment, ruled that the injuries were based

on actions that constituted self-defense on the part of Mr. Detraz and were, therefore,

justified. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I.

ISSUE

Did the trial court commit manifest error by finding that Mr. Detraz acted

in self-defense and, therefore, his actions which caused injury to Mr. Mestayer were

reasonable and necessary?

II.

FACTS

A fight occurred between Mr. Mestayer and Mr. Detraz at a bar in

Abbeville, Louisiana on February 6, 2004. Mr. Detraz claims that Mr. Mestayer had

been offensive and abusive to his wife, Gabrielle Detraz, for a number of hours before

the altercation took place. Mr. Mestayer admits that he had been drinking, and

witnesses testified that he was so intoxicated by the time the fight ensued that he had

trouble standing. Both parties agree that the only person who actually threw any

punches was Mr. Detraz.

Mr. Detraz intercepted Mr. Mestayer as he seemed to be attempting to

follow Mr. Detraz’s wife into the ladies’ restroom. Mr. Detraz claims that Mr.

Mestayer made a verbal threat against both him and his wife. Mr. Detraz hit Mr. Mestayer twice with a closed fist causing injuries which required medical treatment.

Mr. Mestayer filed a personal injury claim against Mr. Detraz. In answer to that

claim, Mr. Detraz claimed that his actions constituted self-defense.

The trial court dismissed Mr. Mestayer’s claim with prejudice, stating

that the use of force by Mr. Detraz was in self-defense as it was reasonable and

necessary under the circumstances because Mr. Mestayer was intoxicated,

threatening, aggressive and belligerent in his actions toward Mr. Detraz and his wife.

Mr. Mestayer timely filed this appeal.

III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

The determination of fault in a tort claim is based on factual conclusion

by the trial court. An appellate court may not reverse those factual determinations

unless they were clearly wrong or contain manifest errors. Landry v. Bellanger, 02-

1443 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So.2d 943, Arceneaux v. De La Rosa, 04-1057 (La.App. 3

Cir. 12/8/04), writ denied, 05-80 (La. 3/18/05), 896 So.2d 1009.

A defendant facing an intentional tort claim has available the complete

defense that his or her actions were privileged or justified, as in the claim of self-

defense, thereby proving that he or she is without fault. Landry v. Bellanger, 851

So.2d 943. The trial court correctly laid out the two-part analysis required when a

defendant invokes the defense of self-defense. “The issue brought forth in these

proceedings requires a dual inquiry, an objective inquiry into whether the force used

was reasonable under the circumstances and a subjective inquiry into whether the

force was apparently reasonable.” This summation is based on Louisiana statute and

jurisprudence.

2 § 19. Use of force or violence in defense

The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable, when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person’s lawful possession; provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this article shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

La.R.S. 14:19.

Under Louisiana jurisprudence, in order to succeed on a claim of self-defense (not involving deadly force), there must be an actual or reasonably apparent threat to the claimant’s safety and the force employed cannot be excessive in degree or kind. Robertson, The Aggressor Doctrine, 1 S.U. L.Rev. at 90. The privilege of self-defense is based on the prevention of harm to the actor, not on the desire for retaliation or revenge, no matter how understandable that desire. Id. at 84.

Landry at 955.

The plaintiff presented two witnesses other than himself, and evidence

of his injuries during the trial on the matter. The defendant presented three witnesses

other than himself. The witnesses talked about the behavior of both men on the

evening of the altercation. Both Mr. Mestayer and Mr. Detraz testified as well. A

number of witnesses stated that Mr. Mestayer had been harassing Mr. Detraz’s wife

on the night of the altercation. When Mr. Detraz asked to him to stop bothering his

wife, Mr. Mestayer made a threatening statement directed at both Mr. and Mrs.

Detraz, e.g., I’ll slap you and your bitch.” Testimony also indicated that Mr.

Mestayer had grabbed Mrs. Detraz’s buttocks on the dance floor.

The trial court made the following conclusions in its written reasons for

judgment, based on hearing all of the testimony and reviewing all of the other

evidence presented at trial:

3 After the testimony and briefs submitted, the Court finds that plaintiff, Michael J. Mestayer, was intoxicated, threatening, aggressive and belligerent in his actions towards Michael J. Detraz, Jr. and his wife, Gabrielle Detraz, at Culpepper’s Lounge and later at Abbeville General Hospital; therefore, the actions of the defendant, Michael J. Detraz, Jr., were apparently necessary and the force used by him was reasonable under the circumstances.

It is clear that the trial judge believed Mr. Detraz, and that he determined

that Mr. Detraz’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The trial court

believed, and the record substantiates, that Mr. Mestayer was the aggressor and that

Mr. Detraz was acting in self-defense. Not only was the force used reasonable but

Mr. Detraz was not the aggressor. “[N]othing prevents a trier of fact from

determining that the plaintiff’s conduct was of such a provocative nature as to render

it the sole cause of his injury.” Landry v. Bellanger, 851 So.2d at 955.

IV.

CONCLUSION

We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error in the judgment

of the trial court. The judgment of the trial court dismissing Mr. Mestayer’s personal

injury claim against Mr. Detraz, with prejudice, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal

are assessed to defendant, Michael Detraz.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3, Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal.

THIS OPINION CONFORMS WITH URCA Rule 2.16.1.B.