Cited by

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

411 citing documents.

Sibley v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF LA. ST. UNIV., ETC. 446 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Lallie Kemp, 428 at 1010
Bradshaw v. Anco Insulation, Inc. 450 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
23:1032; Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
Pique v. Saia 450 So. 2d 654 La. 1984
W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 8 (4th ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute § 8A (1965).
Schwendinger v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 451 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
employee of such employer or principal to a fine or penalty under any other statute or the liability, civil or criminal resulting from an intentional act.” (Emphasis added) sought to define what an intentional act is with regard to the exclusive remedy rule in The Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act: “...
Manning v. Better Way Coatings, Inc. 448 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
MacDonald v. REEVES TRANSP. CO., INC. 448 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Under the Supreme Court definition of "intentional act" one must desire the result or know that the consequences are substantially certain to result.
Owens v. Martin 449 So. 2d 448 La. 1984
Walker v. Grantham 449 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, et al., (1984)
Fabre v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 446 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Quick v. Murphy Oil Co. 446 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
the Louisiana Supreme Court defined "an intentional act": ...
Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. 444 So. 2d 618 La. 1984
Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection 444 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
Darville v. Texaco, Inc. 442 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
The Supreme Court of Louisiana, stated, regarding R.S.
Lemaire v. Younger Transp., Inc. of Texas 443 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
[2] gave the following test for intentional tort in the context of the above mentioned statute: "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."
Maryland v. Fabco Inc. 438 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
23:1032 (see Footnote 2, supra)
Holmes v. Pottharst 438 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Mize v. Beker Industries Corp. 436 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
and Citizen v. Theodore Daigle and Brother, Inc.
Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, Intracoastal Pipe Repair & Supply Co. 435 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
In support of the allegations, (La.App.
Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc. 432 So. 2d 827 La. 1983
Valentine v. Thomas 433 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Owens v. Martin 430 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. 430 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
that the plaintiffs might be able to remove the defendants' objection by a well-pleaded petition"especially with regard to the question of whether Valentine Sugars believed the physical results were substantially certain to follow its alleged acts and omissions" [3]
Maddie v. Plastic Supply & Fabrication, Inc. 434 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
the court established that an "intentional act" within the contemplation of the statute is an intentional tort.
Weinnig v. Brown & Root, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
the court equated the term "intentional act" in the statute with the concept of intentional tort in civil cases.
Williams v. Lallie Kemp Charity Hosp. 428 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Everette v. Goldman, supra.
Jones v. Thomas 426 So. 2d 609 La. 1983
State v. Leach 425 So. 2d 1232 La. 1983
Thomas v. Kenton 425 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Courtney v. BASF Wyandotte Corporation, supra
Vidrine v. Stewart and Landry, Inc. 424 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
gave the following test for intentional tort in the context of the above mentioned statute: "...
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Johnson 426 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, Intracoastal Pipe Repair & Supply Co. 424 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
*516 In support of his argument, (La.App.
Wright v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 424 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
our Supreme Court concluded that "intentional act" under LSA-R.S.
Boudreaux v. Verret 422 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
The definition of "intent" to mean "that the defendant either desired to bring about the physical results of his act or believed that they were substantially certain to follow from what he did."
Hutchinson v. BOARD OF ALDERMAN, ETC. 423 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
2513 , 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976)
Lee v. Admiral Insurance Co. of Texas 420 So. 2d 195 La. 1982
Buckbee on Behalf of Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc. 418 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Plaintiff contends that this knowledge by Chamberlain would bring his alleged failure to warn, etc., on January 15, 1980
Citizen v. Theodore Daigle and Bro., Inc. 418 So. 2d 598 La. 1982
Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 417 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
The trial court, found no merit in plaintiff's assertions on this question.
Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc. 417 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Jacobsen v. Southeast Distributors, Inc. 413 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Freeman v. Insurance Co. of North America 413 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
in their allegations setting forth that the acts of Guillory which caused the SOLOCO truck to overturn were "intentional torts" exempted from the workmen's compensation exclusive remedy provision.
Shores v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York 413 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated that the principal legislative aim of the amendment was to broaden the class of defendants to be granted immunity from tort suits by injured employees, so as to prohibit such suits against the employer's executive officers and employees.
Prater v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. 414 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified the construction and interpretation of the “intentional act” exception to co-employee immunity from civil liability: *819 “For these reasons, we construe the legislation under review as providing that the exclusive remedy rule shall be inapplicable to intentional torts
Clay v. Southern Scrap Material Co. 412 So. 2d 1389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Further, supporting this contention is the recent case of Bazley v. *1391 Tortorich, in which the Supreme Court held that Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1032, as amended, prevents an injured employee from seeking recovery in tort for a work related injury even if it is known to have been negligently caused by his employer and/or employee.
State v. Humphrey 412 So. 2d 507 La. 1982
Hurst v. Massey 411 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
the Louisiana Supreme Court in defining "intentional act" as incorporated in LSA-R.S.
Jones v. Thomas 413 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Eitmann v. West 411 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Reagan v. Olinkraft, Inc. 408 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Johnson v. BERRY BROS. GEN. CONTRACTORS, INC. 405 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981