83-C-1517 Precedential Reversed; trial court judgment reinstated Processed

Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed January 16, 1984 · 444 So. 2d 621

Also decided on this docket: La., September 30, 1983 439 So. 2d 1069

Cited by

Snow v. Lenox Intern. 662 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Trondsen v. Irish-Italian Parade Committee 656 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 653 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Vallery v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 630 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Gallon v. Vaughan Contractors, Inc. 619 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Holden v. Holliday 597 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Delone v. Odom 561 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Robertson v. LaPlace Concrete, Inc. 560 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Chaisson v. Henning 525 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Galvin v. P.E. Barnes & Sons, Ltd. 521 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Wong v. Stanley 505 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Redding v. Essex Crane Rental Corp. 500 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986

all 19 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, Intracoastal Pipe Repair & Supply Co. 435 So. 2d 1033
Bazley v. Tortorich 397 So. 2d 475

Opinion text

444 So.2d 621 (1984) Peter S. FALLO v. TUBOSCOPE INSPECTION, et al. No. 83-C-1517. Supreme Court of Louisiana. January 16, 1984. Rehearing Denied February 15, 1984. Brad G. Theard, Young & Richaud, New Orleans, for applicant. Thomas L. Gaudry, Jr., Pastorek & Gaudry, Gretna, Joel P. Loeffelholz, New Orleans, for respondents. *622 DENNIS, Justice. This is a personal injury suit by an employee against his employer. The trial court granted the employer's summary judgment because the pleadings and deposition on file show there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and that because the employee's injury did not result from an intentional act of his co-employee, his exclusive remedy is for worker's compensation. The court of appeal reversed suggesting that the legislature in La.R.S. 23:1032 by authorizing an employee to recover for personal injuries resulting from a co-employee's intentional tort also intended to permit such recovery for injuries caused by an act of a co-employee which "he should have known" would produce the harmful consequences. 435 So.2d 1033 . This was clear error. In order to come within the exception to the general rule that he may recover only worker's compensation from his employer for a work related injury, the employee must prove that the co-employee tortfeasor, when he acted, either consciously desired the physical result of his act or knew that that result was substantially certain to follow from his conduct. Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981). There is not the slightest suggestion in this record that any co-employee acted with an intent to injure the plaintiff, either by acting with a desire to harm him or by acting with the knowledge that his injury was substantially certain to result from the act. On the contrary, the pleadings and deposition demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the accident occurred while two of the co-employees were attempting to rescue the plaintiff from his peril. Whether they may have acted negligently in this regard is not a genuine issue as to a material fact because the plaintiff employee is not legally entitled to recover damages from his employer because of the careless act of his co-employee. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the summary judgment of the trial court is reinstated. REVERSED; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED.