Laserfiche WebLink
SISBRA CLUB v. ABBTON CONBT. CO, DIiC. 41 <br />atarue-aeat Psesl <br />[I] The bankruptcy judge found Dar• <br />tier's aetiom to be jwtifMd under the Lout- BIERRA CLUB, PlafntiN-ADpolaaR <br />dace a8gresJO7 docLiaa Aanrdiag to that <br />doctrine an tndlridual may not recover fora v' <br />battery it the party saabng m reoovar w., <br />the agjjneeer and the party committing the <br />battery wu acting to ropel an lnvadoo of <br />ABeTON CON8TI;UCTION CO, D?iC, at <br />aL, DataadantaAppeRaa, <br />his parwn. Tripo-f v. Curry, 268 La. 478, State of ALbatna ex rol, . <br />Y18 SoSd 668 (1989). 17ra bankruptry ooutt Latarveaor-AppeWnt <br />found that by striking the Darden with hie Na 77,2680. <br />vehida, Petty aaa an aggressor, and Lhe <br />beating wee a lawful rawtion m that set of Veiled States Court of Appeals, <br />aggreeeton wh[eh wu neither uneeaeonable FtifLh Circtilt <br />nor mraesive. <br />We need not decide whether ar cot nhder <br />Lauietaaa law an act. d negligence, even <br />gross negligence, ma sorutilute an set of <br />aggroaslon wlthln the meaalrrg of the a8' <br />greaeton doctrine, became Derdde raaetlon <br />to the aggrewlon dearly was not in an <br />attempt to eepel the aggeeulon. <br />(4, 6] The eggroeabn doctrine is de• <br />signed to permit a person W protect one's <br />cal! from sn act at viobnce from another <br />psewn. IL fs not designed to permit an <br />1r~urod party W take the Iaw inW hie or her <br />own hands and retaliate against the initial <br />aggraeor. Sea Oakes v. A WeU Baking <br />Ca, 174 I,s 770,1418a 466 (1983); LaadrJ. <br />v. Cfiger Drilling Co., 92 Bo.3d 483 (La.App. <br />1967); Stone, Tort Doctrine fn LouLiana: <br />T'he Aggromar DaettinR Zl TulkRsv. 863, <br />866-68 (1967). Ineemnch a. Petty wee driv- <br />ing his car away from the sane of the <br />laitisl tort, It manor be uid Derdar beet <br />him W repel any aggression. AAy sggree- <br />sion had oesaed and Petty was attempting <br />to leave, taking Dardar's actions outside of <br />Lhe aggression doctrine! <br />Dardar's actlom war wrongful, cad they <br />ware clearly intentlottal aetlons which <br />would necessarily Ind to lgjury. Aaoord- <br />logly, aqy debt arising from Patty's irtJuries <br />b nondisehargeable. <br />REVERSED. <br />June ffi, 18$0. <br />Cltlsrne suit was brougfiL alleging that <br />coal mine operators' aetiHtia waro pto• <br />serlbed "point aouras" of pollutbn. The <br />Untied stew District Court for the North- <br />ern Dletrid c! ALbama. Ssm C. Pointer, <br />Jr, J., entered seminary judgment in favor <br />of mine epenton, and appeal was taken. <br />The Court M ADpals, Roney. Circuit Judge. <br />bald that: (1) genuine ieues of tnaterlal <br />tact proeluding summary judgment esiseed <br />ae W precise nature of em'1 besim ansb'uet- <br />ed by defandwL and Be W whether sedi- <br />ment hums and othm derias aoald be <br />charaeterlsled v ettampassed in centahutn <br />from which pollntartts ware dieehergad, and <br />(~ elUtoltgh under Federal Water Pollution <br />Control Aet definition of point eonroe of <br />pollution excluded unchanneled and uncol- <br />lected surface ratan, rainfall, when mllect- <br />ed or channeled by coal minero in connect <br />Lion With IDlning Operatlom, oonetltutee <br />point sows pollution. <br />Ravened cad remanded. <br />L Health and 16titvlronment 036.7(9) <br />Navigable Watero eo36 <br />Mining activitles, although embiadng <br />at Lima nonpoinL scores of pollutbn were <br />9. ltde 4 not to say feet under LeuUlana law eta+tcee or tbla ease do not ngaeat Dardar'e <br />Petty would noeeesar9y ravwr. Anther, ae ^ actlona were JatlfW bacauae of Petq+a pHor <br />matter of federal 4w, eha facto and elreuee etta. <br /> <br />Z lf:90LA ZE9 EOE ~'1d30 Mb's 1tl0~ W+Bd : 9l:ii q8-q -Z '0~ rJNINIW ~y0~ W~dd:l,9 1N3S <br />