without just cause or excuse. Keathley, 594 So.2d at 966. If Mr. Menson’s version of the attack is accepted, his injuries resulted from the willful and malicious acts committed .by Mr. Taylor. There can be no doubt that the actions of one who violently attacks another person from behind, throwing that person to the ground, jumping on him and breaking his ankle, striking him and threatening to kill him are both willful and malicious. See LaFever v. Whitely, 613 So.2d 1007, 1009 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 614 So.2d 64 (La.1992) (upholding the grant of summary judgment on the issue of insurance coverage, finding an exclusion for willful and malicious acts of the insured precluded coverage for injuries inflicted by an insured during the course of a fight); Keathley, 594 So.2d at 966 (<HOLDING>). Based on the foregoing, although the versions
holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence holding the wifes testimony that husbands release would cause psychological harm to other family members was insufficient to support commitment courts finding that husband would cause serious bodily harm to another person holding that a complaint that sought injunctive relief as well as such further relief as the court deems just did not present a factual allegation supporting a claim for damages holding that the government was to be treated as a private person and a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the agents exceeded their ability to arrest because while a law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant  given probable cause  a private person may only arrest someone for a crime  committed  in his presence holding that someone who strikes another person from behind must have intended for harm to follow and such conduct demonstrates an indifference to the inconsequences that may flow from his actions as well as acting wrongfully and without just cause