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.

  • Perret v. Cytec Industries, Inc. 889 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • Burrow v. Delta Container and XYZ Ins. Co. 887 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    the Court stated that "the words `intentional act' mean the same as `intentional tort' in reference to civil liability."
  • Hines v. Riceland Drilling Co. 882 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 98-1795, p. 6 (La.3/12/99), , ( ).
  • David Hines v. Riceland Drilling Company D/B/A Riceland Petroleum Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Joseph K. Morrow v. Michael Hildalgo La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Morrow v. Hildalgo 861 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Inzinna v. Walcott 868 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Kevin H. James v. Red Simpson, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Only where the actor entertained a desire to bring about the consequences that followed or where the actor believed that the 3 result was substantially certain to follow has an act been characterized as intentional
  • James v. Red Simpson, Inc. 856 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    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
  • Williams v. Superior Uniform Group, Inc. 847 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Flugence v. a & M FARMS, INC. 843 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    (citations omitted), the supreme court defined intent as follows: The meaning of intent in this context is that the defendant either desired to bring about the physical results of his act or believed they were substantially certain to follow from what he did.
  • Young v. Brown 846 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 8 (4th ed.1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute § 8A (1965).
  • Bourgeois v. GREEN INDUSTRIES 841 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    the Louisiana Supreme Court specifically concluded that this amendment included immunity for executive officers.
  • Nicks v. Ax Reinforcement Co. 841 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    In Reeves , the Supreme Court, stated that "the *991 words `intentional act' mean the same as `intentional tort' in reference to civil liability."
  • Ewing v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. 846 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    the supreme court stated that the aim of the 1976 amendment to the Act was "to broaden the class of defendants to be granted immunity from suits by injured employees in tort or delict."
  • Thomas v. Fina Oil and Chemical Co. 845 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    and a long list of subsequent cases, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that it and the appellate courts have narrowly construed the intentional act exception according to the legislative intent.
  • Belgard v. American Freightways, Inc. 830 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    the supreme court determined that the exclusive remedy rule of workers’ compensation was inapplicable to intentional torts or offenses.
  • King v. Galloway 828 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Pique, 450 So.2d at 655 , citing, Breland arises out of an altercation at a softball game.
  • Cole v. Department of Public Safety 825 So. 2d 1134 La. 2002
    at 211 () In Bazley , 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 mechanical and electrical
  • Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co. 820 So. 2d 542 La. 2002
  • Young v. City of Plaquemine 818 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that "intentional act" means either that the employer consciously desired the physical result of the act or that he or she knew that the result was substantially certain to follow from the act, notwithstanding the desire as to the result.
  • McCool v. Beauregard Memorial Hosp. 814 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Barnett v. MERIDIAN RESOURCES & EXPLORATION 815 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    [2] the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that "intentional act" meant either that the actor consciously desired the physical result of the act or that he or she knew that the result was substantially certain to follow from the act, notwithstanding the desire as to the result.
  • Temple v. J & S Communication Contractors Cell Tech Services Partnership 805 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Reeves the court collected a number of cases and recognized that the courts of appeal “have almost universally held that employers are not liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or for failing to provide safety equipment.” : 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.
  • Rayford v. Angelo Iafrate Construction, L.L.C. 806 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    resulting from an intentional act.” the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to intentional torts or offenses.
  • Ott v. LPK Systems, Inc. 812 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    -81 (La.1981), this Court addressed the meaning of this statute’s “intentional act” language opining that the statute’s “intentional act” exception mirrored the traditional distinction between intentional torts and negligence in common law.
  • Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co. 809 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Lafleur v. City of New Orleans 800 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Plaintiffs claim they are being deprived of a vested property right which, is a basic constitutional right.
  • Mouton v. Blue Marlin Specialty Tools, Inc. 799 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Craft v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 799 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Louisiana Pub. Facilities Auth. v. Foster 795 So. 2d 288 La. 2001
    Doherty v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 93-3017 (La.4/11/94)
  • Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Smith v. TANNER HEAVY EQUIP. CO., INC. 790 So. 2d 615 La. 2001
    depending on the fact-finder's credibility determinations —determinations the court noted are inappropriate when deciding a motion for summary judgment.
  • Lott v. St. Martin Parish School Bd. 784 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Richardson v. Home Depot USA 808 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Taylor v. Transocean Terminal Operators, Inc. 785 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 776 So. 2d 439 La. 2001
  • Clark v. Division Seven, Inc. 776 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • Livaccari v. Alden Engineering, Inc. 808 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    However, where an act is arbitrary and capricious and intentional, in that "the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead," then the "intentional act" exclusion applies and the exclusive remedy rule is inapplicable.
  • Beard v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 774 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    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
  • Keller v. Evans Cooperage, Inc. 771 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Louisiana Municipal Ass'n v. State ex rel. Foster 762 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Doherty v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 93-3017 (La.4/11/94), -76
  • Araujo v. Eitmann 762 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • Washington v. Falco S & D, Inc. 762 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    23:1082 B, means that “the defendant either desired to bring about the physical results of his act or believed they were substantially certain to follow from what he did.”
  • Johnson v. Templeton 768 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    amended statute, reiterated that the employer or other person identified in the Act must “either (1) consciously desire the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of the 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.” Reeves, 731 So.2d at 211
  • Labbe v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 756 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Verret v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Belgard v. American Freightways, Inc. 755 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    In reversing the trial court
  • DeBlanc v. International Marine Carriers 748 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to intentional torts or offenses.