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.

  • Leger v. Hardy Rice Drier, Inc. 640 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Ellis v. Normal Life of Louisiana 638 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    Plaintiff claims that these contentions raise the issue of whether Sarah Ellis' death was not just consciously intentional, but substantially certain to follow, as set forth in the leading case on intentional tort, in the workers compensation area
  • Keller v. Evans Cooperage, Inc. 641 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    On appeal, the Fourth Circuit, at page 627 said: "To the extent that appellant's constitutional attack is directed at the increased tort immunity conferred on direct employers and principals by the 1976 amendments to the compensation act, (La.
  • State in Interest of AC 643 So. 2d 719 La. 1994
  • Creel v. Concordia Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 640 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    23:1081, strictly construed, relieve employers of liability only for injuries that are intended by individuals, *509 (La.App.
  • McKee v. Inspectorate America Corp. 636 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    This Court conducted a thorough analysis of the meaning of "intentional act" as used in the Worker's Compensation Law in Adams v. Time Saver Stores, Inc., supra , commencing at p. 462: (La.
  • Weber v. State 635 So. 2d 188 La. 1994
    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.
  • Doherty v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd. 634 So. 2d 1172 La. 1994
  • Vallery v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 630 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Griffin v. Tenneco Oil Co. 625 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Succession of Lauga 624 So. 2d 1156 La. 1993
  • Billiot v. BP Oil Co. 617 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    In Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., the court reiterated the *30 (La.
  • Gauthier v. O'BRIEN 618 So. 2d 825 La. 1993
  • Gallon v. Vaughan Contractors, Inc. 619 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • LaFleur v. City of New Orleans 619 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In the instant case, the plaintiffs claim that they are being deprived of a vested property right, which is a (La.
  • Charia v. Hulse 619 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    the Supreme Court differentiated between the unintentional and intentional tort.
  • Trahan v. Trans-Louisiana Gas Co., Inc. 618 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 618 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Durrett v. Scott Truck and Tractor 614 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Shaw v. Bourn 615 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Adams v. Time Saver Stores, Inc. 615 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Gagnard v. Baldridge 612 So. 2d 732 La. 1993
    [7] this court discussed the legislative intent for adding what is now La.R.S.
  • Weber v. State 608 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Villa v. Derouen 614 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that "an intentional tort", for the purpose of allowing an employee to go beyond the exclusive remedy of worker's compensation, meant "the same as `intentional tort' in reference to civil liability."
  • Wilson v. Advance Paper Co., Inc. 612 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, , at page 482 (La.1981), discussed the meaning of the term "intentional tort," as it was applied in R.S.
  • Boatner v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc. 609 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    upon which the defendants rely, postured a two (2) pronged, disjunctive test for determining what constitutes an intentional act.
  • Great American Ins. Co. v. Gaspard 608 So. 2d 981 La. 1992
    W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 8 (4th ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute § 8A (1965).
  • Armstead v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc. 609 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, gave definition to the term "intentional act" as used in the above mentioned statute: The meaning of "intent" is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that the result is substant
  • Suarez v. American Pecco Corp. 608 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    this Court concluded that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action against his employer.
  • Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ. 607 So. 2d 517 La. 1992
  • Cox v. Glazer Steel Corp. 606 So. 2d 518 La. 1992
  • Brown v. Diversified Hospitality Group, Inc. 600 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Wainwright v. Moreno's, Inc. 602 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, , at page 482 (La.1981), discussed the meaning of the term "intentional tort," as it was applied in La.R.S.
  • Rose v. XYZ Cable Co. 600 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Since the accident was substantially certain to follow
  • Great American Ins. Co. v. Gaspard 594 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 8 (4th ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute § 8A (1965).
  • Pickney v. Smith 597 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    23:1032, as follows: For these reasons, we construe the legislation under review as providing that the exclusive remedy rule shall be inapplicable to intentional torts or offenses.
  • Simpson v. Angel 598 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Holden v. Holliday 597 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the words “intentional act” in La.R.S.
  • Knight v. Cracker Barrel Stores, Inc. 597 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Fannin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 594 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    established that an intentional act within the contemplation of the statute is an intentional tort.
  • Ford v. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Bd. 594 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    Williams v. Charity Hosp.
  • Carter v. Chevron Chemical Co. 593 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Faridnia v. Ecolab, Inc. 593 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, gave definition to the term "intentional act" as used in the above mentioned statute: The meaning of "intent" is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that that result is substan
  • Rankins v. Aytch 591 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Cox v. Glazer Steel Corp. 592 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    As an example, Louisiana courts have held the workers’s compensation laws not only give immunity to employers from an employee’s claims for negligent injury, but also gives immunity to employers from claims by third parties on other causes of actions, such as claims of a spouse for loss of consortium.
  • Tapia v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets 590 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • White v. Monsanto Co. 585 So. 2d 1205 La. 1991
  • Hebert v. Brugier 582 So. 2d 838 La. 1991
  • Van Alton v. Fisk Electric, Inc. 581 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted LSA-R.S.
  • King v. Schuylkill Metals Corp. 581 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Kent v. Jomac Products, Inc., (La.App.