Nicolas Blanchard v. Action Industries Inc., The Dow Chemical Company and Myron Gibson

A

NICOLAS BLANCHARD NO. 2024 CW 0844

VERSUS

ACTION INDUSTRIES INC., THE
FEBRUARY 14, 2025
DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY AND
MYRON GIBSON

In Re:
The Dow Chemical Company and Myron Gibson, applying for
supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish
of Assumption, No. 38949.

BEFORE: WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.

STAY LIFTED; WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s August 27,
2024 ruling denying the motion for judgment
summary filed by
Defendants, The Dow Chemical Company and Myron Gibson, is
reversed. Under the " exclusive remedy" provided by La. R. S.
23: 1032,
an employer is generally immune from tort liability to an
injured employee. Moreno v.
Entergy 2012- 0097 (
Corp., La.
12/ 4/ 12), 105 So. 3d 40, 49. However, under La. R. S. 23: 1032( B),
the employer remains liable for " an intentional act." In the
context of La. R. S. 23: 1032, an " intentional act" is an act by a
person ( 1)
or entity) who either: (
consciously desires the physical
result of his act,
whatever the likelihood of the result happening
from his conduct; or ( 2) knows that the result is substantially
certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as
to that result. Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-
1795 ( La. 3/ 12/ 99), 731 So. 2d 208, 211. Based on the facts of
this case, we find Defendants
successfully demonstrated they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and Plaintiff failed to
produce factual support sufficient to preclude summary
judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966 ( D) ( 1) . As such, the
motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants, The Dow Chemical
Company and Myron Gibson, is hereby granted, and all claims
asserted by Plaintiff, Nicolas Blanchard, against Defendants, The
Dow Chemical Company and Myron Gibson, are dismissed with
prejudice.

EW
SMM
HG

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT