This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Intending only horseplay, D pointed a welding cutting torch in P's direction and intentionally releasing oxygen or acetylene gas and caused unintentional harm to P, i.e., second degree burns to Ps groin area. Under cross-examination, D responded affirmatively when asked if he placed the torch between P's legs and also responded affirmatively when asked if he intended to spray P between the legs with oxygen when he placed the torch between P's legs. Other witnesses testified that D admitted he was playing around with the cutting torch and 'goosing' or trying to scare P at the time of the accident. The jury found that D did not commit an intentional tort against P. This finding foreclosed P from recovery in this action insofar as P is limited to worker's compensation unless it was found that D committed an intentional tort which caused P's injuries. P appealed: the jury erred in finding that D did not commit an intentional tort.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.