98 So. 3d 297
La.2012Background
- Plaintiff sues husband's employer for failure to follow safety procedures causing decedent's death.
- Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing exclusive remedy under workers’ compensation since no intentional act.
- District court denied summary judgment; court of appeals denied supervisory writs; proceeding ensued.
- To recover in tort under La.R.S. 28:1032(B), plaintiff must prove an intentional act, defined in Bazley v. Tortorich.
- Plaintiff contends decedent’s injuries were substantially certain to follow from defendant’s conduct (substantial certainty).
- Court holds that alleged unsafe conditions, even if negligent, do not establish substantial certainty; writ granted and summary judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial certainty suffices to prove an intentional act | Plaintiff argues conduct was substantially certain to cause harm. | Defendant contends substantial certainty is not met; exclusive remedy remains workers’ comp. | No; substantial certainty not proven, so no intentional act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La. 1981) (defines intentional act for tort recovery under workers’ compensation framework)
- Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (substantial certainty requires more than probable injury; mere knowledge of risk is insufficient)
- Simoneaux v. Excel Group, LLC, 936 So.2d 1246 (La. 2006) (poor working conditions may be negligent but not intentional)
- Jasmin v. HNV Cent. Riverfront Corp., 642 So.2d 311 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1994) (definition of 'substantially certain' and its limits)
- Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 618 So.2d 1140 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1993) (mere knowledge of risk does not equal intent)
- Tapia v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 590 So.2d 806 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1991) (reckless or wanton conduct not equivalent to intentional wrongdoing)