132 So. 3d 386
La.2014Background
- Plaintiff's decedent died from injuries when a large engine block fell during cleaning at the workplace.
- Plaintiffs filed a tort suit against the employer and its insurer alleging failure to follow proper safety procedures.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs' exclusive remedy was workers' compensation due to lack of intentional acts.
- District court denied summary judgment; court of appeal denied supervisory writs.
- The issue is whether plaintiffs can recover in tort under La.R.S. 23:1032(B) by showing an intentional act or substantially certain injury.
- Court concluded the evidence did not establish the injury was inevitable; actions may be negligent but not intentional; writ granted and summary judgment reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial certainty supports an intentional-act claim | Plaintiffs contend substantial certainty existed due to defective equipment. | Defendants argue substantial certainty not proven; mere risk or high probability is insufficient. | Not met; substantial certainty required inevitability, which was not shown. |
| Whether the employer’s knowledge of danger converts to intentional wrongdoing | Plaintiffs rely on known frayed straps and unsafe hoisting equipment as evidence of intent. | Knowledge of danger alone does not constitute intent or willful action. | Knowledge of risk does not amount to intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreau v. Moreau's Material Yard, 98 So.3d 297 (La. 2012) (defined substantial certainty standard for intentional torts in worker-safety context)
- Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (substantial certainty requires more than probable injury; must be inevitable)
- Jasmin v. HNV Cent. Riverfront Corp., 642 So.2d 311 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994) (definition of 'substantially certain' as inevitable injury)
- Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 618 So.2d 1140 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993) (mere knowledge and risk not sufficient for intent)
- Tapia v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 590 So.2d 806 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991) (reckless or wanton conduct not equivalent to intentional wrongdoing)
- Simoneaux v. Excel Group, LLC, 936 So.2d 1246 (La. 2006) (employer's poor conditions may be negligent but not intentional)