(CN) – A Louisiana man is liable for beating up the guy he says “intentionally engaged in unwanted and nonconsensual sexual relations” with his unconscious wife and then embarrassed her further by taking nude photos that he shared with his friends.
Brandon Shane Griffith sued Forrest Young, claiming that Young came to his home and attacked him in May 2009 “without any provocation whatsoever.”
Griffith claimed Young kicked in his door, cornered Griffith and “made a statement to the effect of ‘I have been waiting two years for this,'” according to court records.
Since Young pleaded guilty to battery charges in February 2010, Griffith claimed that the civil court needed to resolve damages only, not liability. In that criminal case, Young admitted that he used a knuckle stun gun to attack Griffith.
Young responded to the civil lawsuit by claiming that his conduct was justified by Griffith’s previous actions toward his wife – an alleged attack shortly before their marriage.
Young said in an affidavit that Griffith had “intentionally engaged in unwanted and nonconsensual sexual relations” with Young’s wife “while she was in an unconscious or semi-conscious state and unable to give consent.”
After the alleged attack, Griffith allegedly showed naked photos of Young’s wife to others.
The Shreveport-based Second District Louisiana Court of Appeals seemed sympathetic to Young’s position, but ultimately upheld the lower court’s summary judgment for Griffith.
“While the plaintiff’s alleged actions against Mrs. Young – a third party to the altercation – are grossly offensive, the evidence submitted on summary judgment indicates that they occurred about 20 months before her husband’s attack against the plaintiff,” Judge Gay Gaskins wrote for the court. “Also, there is no allegation in the affidavits opposing summary judgment to indicate when Young learned of the incident. We believe that the sort of ‘provocation’ which is intended as a privilege or justification for the defendant’s actions is of a more immediate nature involving the possibility of physical harm. Here, neither self-defense nor defense of another would be a viable defense because there was no immediate threat of harm from the plaintiff.”