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

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 court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

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