intentional act exception in Louisiana

2006In Ponthier v. Brown's Manufacturing, Inc., 95-1606, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1253, 1256 , we said: Our brethren on the First Circuit, Court of Appeal visited this issue recently in Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., 94-1274 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95) ; 653 So.2d 1199 , writ denied, 95-1381 (La.9/15/95); 660 So.2d 461 .

2001Ponthier v. Brown's Manufacturing, Inc., 95-1606 (La.App. 3 Cir.1996); 671 So.2d 1253 .

2005Cobblestone was dismissed because, as owner of the property, it had no responsibility for the construction project. [5] In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208 , the court recounted Louisiana's appellate decisions where employer's were not held liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or failing to provide safety equipment as follows: Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App. 4 Cir.8/30/94), 642 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 94-2445 (La. 12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1110 (failure to provide safe working environment

2005In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208 , the court recounted Louisiana's appellate decisions where employer's were not held liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or failing to provide safety equipment as follows: Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App. 4 Cir.8/30/94), 642 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 94-2445 (La. 12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1110 (failure to provide safe working environment in grain storage bin); Leger v. Hardy Rice Drier, Inc., 93-1512 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94) , 640 So.2d 650 (maintaining fo

2005Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469, 471 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987); (2) poorly designed machinery and failure to follow OSHA safety provisions, Cortez v. Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 402 So.2d 249 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981); (3) failure to provide requested safety equipment, Jacobsen v. Southeast Distributors, 413 So.2d 995 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982); and (4) failure to correct unsafe working conditions, Dycus v. Martin Marietta Corp., 568 So.2d 592, 594 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990). [11] As noted, although Kenneth Zimko's entire career at Domino was in management and he always had an office, he testified that som

1998Louisiana courts have held that the following acts do not fall within the intentional act exception: (1) allegations of failure to provide a safe place to work, Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469, 471 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987); (2) poorly designed machinery and failure to follow OSHA safety provisions, Cortez v. Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corp., 402 So.2d 249 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1981); (3) failure to provide requested safety equipment, Jacobsen v. Southeast Distributors, Inc., 413 So.2d 995 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 415 So.2d 953 (La.1982); and (4) failure to correct unsafe wo

2005Cobblestone was dismissed because, as owner of the property, it had no responsibility for the construction project. [5] In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208 , the court recounted Louisiana's appellate decisions where employer's were not held liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or failing to provide safety equipment as follows: Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App. 4 Cir.8/30/94), 642 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 94-2445 (La. 12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1110 (failure to provide safe working environment

2005In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208 , the court recounted Louisiana's appellate decisions where employer's were not held liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or failing to provide safety equipment as follows: Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App. 4 Cir.8/30/94), 642 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 94-2445 (La. 12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1110 (failure to provide safe working environment in grain storage bin); Leger v. Hardy Rice Drier, Inc., 93-1512 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94) , 640 So.2d 650 (maintaining fo

2005Gallant v. Transcontinental Drilling Co., 471 So.2d 858 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985).

2005Gallant v. Transcontinental Drilling Co., 471 So.2d 858 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985).

2005Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469, 471 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987); (2) poorly designed machinery and failure to follow OSHA safety provisions, Cortez v. Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 402 So.2d 249 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981); (3) failure to provide requested safety equipment, Jacobsen v. Southeast Distributors, 413 So.2d 995 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982); and (4) failure to correct unsafe working conditions, Dycus v. Martin Marietta Corp., 568 So.2d 592, 594 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990). [11] As noted, although Kenneth Zimko's entire career at Domino was in management and he always had an office, he testified that som

1998Louisiana courts have held that the following acts do not fall within the intentional act exception: (1) allegations of failure to provide a safe place to work, Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469, 471 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987); (2) poorly designed machinery and failure to follow OSHA safety provisions, Cortez v. Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corp., 402 So.2d 249 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1981); (3) failure to provide requested safety equipment, Jacobsen v. Southeast Distributors, Inc., 413 So.2d 995 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 415 So.2d 953 (La.1982); and (4) failure to correct unsafe wo

2024Cole, 825 So. 2d at 1141 .

2021Cole, 825 So. 2d at 1141 .

2022In Caudle, supra, the supreme court considered the intentional act exception in the context of the intentional tort of battery.

2021In support of his motion for partial summary judgment, Chevis relies on Caudle v. Betts, 512 So. 2d 389 ( La. 1987), which considered the intentional act exception in the context of the intentional tort of battery.

2009Abney, supra. Similarly, in Clark v. Division Seven, Inc., 1999-3079 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/20/00), 776 So.2d 1262 , writ denied, 2001-0183 (La.3/16/01), 787 So.2d 318 , the court affirmed a judgment finding the employer liable under the intentional act exception for injuries suffered by an employee who fell from a slanted roof after a rainstorm.

2008In Clark v. Division Seven, Inc., 99-3079 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/20/00) , 776 So.2d 1262 , we found an "intentional act" within the meaning of La.

2005Const. Co., 563 So.2d 1333 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990) (knowledge that machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured from such use); Davis v. Southern Louisiana Insulations, 539 So.2d 922 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989) (failure to provide ladders and scaffolding); Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987) (failure to maintain safe working conditions); Taylor v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 496 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 497 So.2d 1388 (La.1986) (failure to provide scaffold worker with safety belt); Snow v.

1998Louisiana courts have held that the following acts do not fall within the intentional act exception: (1) allegations of failure to provide a safe place to work, Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469, 471 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987); (2) poorly designed machinery and failure to follow OSHA safety provisions, Cortez v. Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corp., 402 So.2d 249 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1981); (3) failure to provide requested safety equipment, Jacobsen v. Southeast Distributors, Inc., 413 So.2d 995 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 415 So.2d 953 (La.1982); and (4) failure to correct unsafe wo

2005Cobblestone was dismissed because, as owner of the property, it had no responsibility for the construction project. [5] In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208 , the court recounted Louisiana's appellate decisions where employer's were not held liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or failing to provide safety equipment as follows: Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App. 4 Cir.8/30/94), 642 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 94-2445 (La. 12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1110 (failure to provide safe working environment

2005In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208 , the court recounted Louisiana's appellate decisions where employer's were not held liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or failing to provide safety equipment as follows: Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App. 4 Cir.8/30/94), 642 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 94-2445 (La. 12/9/94), 647 So.2d 1110 (failure to provide safe working environment in grain storage bin); Leger v. Hardy Rice Drier, Inc., 93-1512 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94) , 640 So.2d 650 (maintaining fo

2007In Guillory v. Olin Corp., 99-567, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 745 So.2d 713, 715-16 , writ denied, 99-3600 (La.2/18/00), 754 So.2d 968 , this court explained the requirements under the intentional act exception found in La.R.S. 23:1032(B): The statute as enacted limits the availability of tort recovery only to employees whose injuries are caused by genuine intentional acts, anything less than intentional, whether it be gross negligence or violation of a safety rule, remains in workers’ compensation.

2001In Guillory v. Olin Corp., 99-567, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99); 745 So.2d 713, 715-16 , writ denied, 99-3600 (La.2/18/00); 754 So.2d 968 , this court reviewed the employee's burden of proof with regard to the intentional act exception to La.R.S. 23:1032: Plaintiff's cause of action is based on the alleged commission of an "intentional act" as defined by La.R.S. 23:1032(B).

2007In Guillory v. Olin Corp., 99-567, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 745 So.2d 713, 715-16 , writ denied, 99-3600 (La.2/18/00), 754 So.2d 968 , this court explained the requirements under the intentional act exception found in La.R.S. 23:1032(B): The statute as enacted limits the availability of tort recovery only to employees whose injuries are caused by genuine intentional acts, anything less than intentional, whether it be gross negligence or violation of a safety rule, remains in workers’ compensation.

2001In Guillory v. Olin Corp., 99-567, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99); 745 So.2d 713, 715-16 , writ denied, 99-3600 (La.2/18/00); 754 So.2d 968 , this court reviewed the employee's burden of proof with regard to the intentional act exception to La.R.S. 23:1032: Plaintiff's cause of action is based on the alleged commission of an "intentional act" as defined by La.R.S. 23:1032(B).

2006In Ponthier v. Brown's Manufacturing, Inc., 95-1606, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1253, 1256 , we said: Our brethren on the First Circuit, Court of Appeal visited this issue recently in Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., 94-1274 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95) ; 653 So.2d 1199 , writ denied, 95-1381 (La.9/15/95); 660 So.2d 461 .

2000In Ponthier v. Brown's Mfg., Inc., 95-1606, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/96); 671 So.2d 1253, 1256-57 , we said: Our brethren on the First Circuit, Court of Appeal visited this issue recently in Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., 94-1274 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95) ; 653 So.2d 1199 , writ denied, 95-1381 (La.9/15/95); 660 So.2d 461 .

2006In Ponthier v. Brown's Manufacturing, Inc., 95-1606, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1253, 1256 , we said: Our brethren on the First Circuit, Court of Appeal visited this issue recently in Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., 94-1274 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95) ; 653 So.2d 1199 , writ denied, 95-1381 (La.9/15/95); 660 So.2d 461 .

2000In Ponthier v. Brown's Mfg., Inc., 95-1606, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/96); 671 So.2d 1253, 1256-57 , we said: Our brethren on the First Circuit, Court of Appeal visited this issue recently in Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., 94-1274 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95) ; 653 So.2d 1199 , writ denied, 95-1381 (La.9/15/95); 660 So.2d 461 .

2005Const. Co., 563 So.2d 1333 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990) (knowledge that machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured from such use); Davis v. Southern Louisiana Insulations, 539 So.2d 922 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989) (failure to provide ladders and scaffolding); Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987) (failure to maintain safe working conditions); Taylor v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 496 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 497 So.2d 1388 (La.1986) (failure to provide scaffold worker with safety belt); Snow v.

2002The facts in Clark v. Division Seven, Inc., 99-3079 (LaApp. 4th Cir.12/20/00), 776 So.2d 1262 ; Trahan v. Trans-Louisiana Gas Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 30 (L.App. 3rd Cir.1993) and Wainwright v. Moreno’s, Inc., 602 So.2d 734 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992), share the common theme that injury was immediately foreseeable to the employer and indeed was inevitable.

2005R.S. 23:1032(B) provides an exception to this rule as follows: “Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the liability of the employer ... resulting from an intentional act.” Recently, in Escande v. Alliance Francaise De La Nouvelle Orleans, 2004-1134 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/05) , 894 So.2d 488 , this Court reiterated the prevailing jurisprudence as it concerns the intentional act exception to the exclusive remedies provision of the workers’ compensation act as follows: In Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to in

2005R.S. 23:1032(B) provides an exception to this rule as follows: “Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the liability of the employer ... resulting from an intentional act.” Recently, in Escande v. Alliance Francaise De La Nouvelle Orleans, 2004-1134 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/05) , 894 So.2d 488 , this Court reiterated the prevailing jurisprudence as it concerns the intentional act exception to the exclusive remedies provision of the workers’ compensation act as follows: In Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to in

2005Const. Co., 563 So.2d 1333 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990) (knowledge that machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured from such use); Davis v. Southern Louisiana Insulations, 539 So.2d 922 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989) (failure to provide ladders and scaffolding); Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987) (failure to maintain safe working conditions); Taylor v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 496 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 497 So.2d 1388 (La.1986) (failure to provide scaffold worker with safety belt); Snow v.

2002The facts in Clark v. Division Seven, Inc., 99-3079 (LaApp. 4th Cir.12/20/00), 776 So.2d 1262 ; Trahan v. Trans-Louisiana Gas Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 30 (L.App. 3rd Cir.1993) and Wainwright v. Moreno’s, Inc., 602 So.2d 734 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992), share the common theme that injury was immediately foreseeable to the employer and indeed was inevitable.

2005Const. Co., 563 So.2d 1333 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990) (knowledge that machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured from such use); Davis v. Southern Louisiana Insulations, 539 So.2d 922 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989) (failure to provide ladders and scaffolding); Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 517 So.2d 469 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987) (failure to maintain safe working conditions); Taylor v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 496 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 497 So.2d 1388 (La.1986) (failure to provide scaffold worker with safety belt); Snow v.

2005Const. Co., 563 So.2d 1333 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990) (knowledge that machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured from such use); Davis v. Southern.