DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So. 2d 475.

411 citing documents.

  • Joe Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Explained Tommie Hebert and Melissa Anne Hebert v. J. Oran Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    23:1032(B), plaintiffs must prove Mr. Batiste’s injury resulted from an “intentional act.” we explained an intentional act requires the actor to either 1) consciously desire the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) know that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever
  • Explained Hebert v. Richard 72 So. 3d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    23:1032(B), plaintiffs must prove Mr. Batiste’s injury resulted from an “intentional act.” we explained an intentional act requires the actor to either (1) consciously desire the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) know that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result
  • Young v. Doe 67 So. 3d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Daigre v. International Truck & Engine Corp. 67 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Thus, the injury to the employee was the foreseeable consequence of the violation of *512 the OSHA rule, but the Louisiana Supreme Court, nonetheless, held in Reeves that it was not “intentional”: In Bazley [v. Tortorich, ], where the plaintiff did not allege that his co-employee either desired the consequences of his acts or believed they were substantially certain to follow his acts, we held that the co-employee’s acts of operating a garbage truck without a working horn, disregarding mechanica
  • Bruno v. Bellsouth/The Berry Co. 59 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Co., Inc., 01-0886 (La.6/15/01), ().
  • Crockett v. Therral Story Well Service, Inc. 57 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • Joe Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic 51 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Explained Batiste v. Bayou Steel Corp. 45 So. 3d 167 La. 2010
    28:1032(B), plaintiffs must prove Mr. Batiste’s injury resulted from an “intentional act.” we explained an intentional act requires the actor to either 1) consciously desire the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) know that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result.
  • Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc. 47 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • Douglas v. Children's Hospital 69 So. 3d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Brown v. Doe 46 So. 3d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Supreme Court in Reeves determined the meaning of an “intentional act” and a discussion of the legislative intent of the exception of |sLa.
  • Jones v. R & R STORES, INC. 30 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Rainey v. a ACADIAN INC. 30 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Reynolds v. Louisiana Plastic 26 So. 3d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that an act is considered intentional whenever it is shown that the defendant either “consciously desired” the physical results of his conduct or was “substantially certain” that those physical results would follow from his actions.
  • Berry v. Valley Gin, Inc. 16 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 2000-1335 (La.1/17/01), , citing Reeves, supra
  • Needom v. Robein 7 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    In finding that the right to recover in tort is not a fundamental right, our court has noted that “[w]here access to the judicial process is not essential to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, the legislature is free to allocate access to the judicial machín- *36 ery on any system or classification which is not totally arbitrary.” Reeder , 97-0239, p. 9, 701 So.2d at 1296-1297 .
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See, for example Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (1965); -82 (La.1981); Maraist & Galligan, supra, § 2.01(1), pp. 2-3 and 2-4; H. Johnson, 18 La.
  • Nichols v. HORSESHOE CASINO 999 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    In Clinton, supra, this court explained: the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that an act is considered intentional whenever it is shown that the defendant either "consciously desired" the physical results of his conduct or was "substantially certain" that those physical results would follow from his actions.
  • Raywood Joseph Broussard v. Terry Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    It is clear that both the appellate and supreme courts of this state have followed a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes an “intentional tort,” since the supreme court’s placing an extremely high burden of proof on a plaintiff.
  • Broussard v. Smith 999 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    It is clear that both the appellate and supreme courts of this state have followed a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes an "intentional tort," placing an extremely high burden of proof on a plaintiff.
  • Kennedy-Fagan v. Estate of Graves 993 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Granger 982 So. 2d 779 La. 2008
  • Rogers v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections 982 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Clinton v. Reigel By-Products, Inc., supra .
  • Campione v. Alderman 978 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Jeremy Campione v. Andrew Alderman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Distinguished Carolyn Strohe v. Calcasieu Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    The School Board argues that the Lott decision is wrong and that it is “out-of- step” with the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
  • Distinguished Stroh v. Calcasieu Parish School Board 978 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    The School Board argues that the Lott decision is wrong and that it is “out-of-step” with the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
  • Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 975 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Louisiana law defines "intent" to mean "`that the defendant either desired to bring about the physical results of his act or believe'd they were substantially certain to follow from what he did.'" Cole v. State Department of Safety and Corrections, 01-2123, p. 7 (La.9/4/02), ( ).
  • Wong v. Hoffman 973 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • Clinton v. Reigel By-Products, Inc. 965 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that an act is considered intentional whenever it is shown that the defendant either "consciously desired" the physical results of his conduct or was "substantially certain" that those physical results would follow from his actions.
  • Heather Hoffman v. Target Corporation of Minnesota La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Hoffman v. Target Corp. of Minnesota 951 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Tarita Manor v. Abbeville General Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Only where the actor entertained a desire to bring about the consequences that followed or where the actor believed that the result was substantially certain to follow has an act been characterized as intentional
  • Manor v. ABBEVILLE GENERAL HOSP. 940 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Only where the actor entertained a desire to bring about the consequences that followed or where the actor believed *891 that the result was substantially certain to follow has an act been characterized as intentional, (La.
  • Arrington v. ER PHYSICIANS GROUP, APMC. 940 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    See Bazley [v. Tortorich, ].
  • Simoneaux v. Excel Group, LLC 936 So. 2d 1246 La. 2006
    they argued they did not know that plaintiff's injury was substantially certain to occur.
  • Abram v. Epec Oil Co. 936 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • Leboeuf v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 934 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 5 (La.3/12/99), ().
  • Zimko v. American Cyanamid 905 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    resulting from an intentional act.") the Louisiana Supreme Court construed the term "intentional act" in Section 1032(B) to mean the same as an "intentional tort."
  • Hirst v. Thieneman 905 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    4 Cir. 1/19/05), , this Court stated: the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to intentional torts or offenses.
  • Evans v. Bossier Parish School Bd. 903 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an act is considered intentional whenever it is shown that the defendant either "consciously desired" the physical results of his conduct or was "substantially certain" that those physical results would follow from his actions.
  • Bergeron v. Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc. 903 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Hirst v. Thieneman 901 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    4 Cir. 1/19/05) , , 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: the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to intentional torts or offenses.
  • Bennett v. Ragon 907 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Doe v. Breedlove 906 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    -82 (La.1981), is instructive: The word act is used to denote an external manifestation of the actor's will which produces consequences.
  • Escande v. Alliance Francaise de la Nouvelle Orleans 894 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    resulting from an intentional act.” the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to intentional torts or offenses.
  • Deshotel v. Guichard Operating Co., Inc. 916 So. 2d 72 La. 2004
  • Chabert v. Mothe Life Insurance Co. 890 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004