Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Caudle v. Betts, 512 So. 2d 389.

133 citing documents.

Pickney v. Smith 597 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Thus, when a company officer administered an electric shock to a worker, intending to play a good- *1197 natured practical joke, yet nonetheless producing serious injury to the victim, we held the actor liable for all consequences flowing from his act.
Knight v. Cracker Barrel Stores, Inc. 597 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Beaudoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 594 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
the Supreme Court stated that the legal precepts of general tort law must be applied when an employee is seeking recovery from his employer for an intentional tort.
Faridnia v. Ecolab, Inc. 593 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Tapia v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets 590 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
WRIT GRANTED NOTES [1] The author disagrees with the language in Dycus, 568 So.2d at 594 , to hold that Bazley's "substantially certain" test will be applied only to acts which can be classified as a traditional intentional tortsuch as battery and assault.
White v. Monsanto Co. 585 So. 2d 1205 La. 1991
Van Alton v. Fisk Electric, Inc. 581 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
the Louisiana Supreme Court defined a battery as “[a] harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause plaintiff to suffer such a contact.” In Caudle , an employee was intentionally shocked by a co-employee as a practical joke.
Wallace v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 578 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Cousineau v. Johnson 577 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
1st Cir.1989) (employer held liable for injuries to bystander when employee negligently hit her in the head with a basketball during a game on employer’s premises); (La.
Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co., Inc. 573 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 571 So. 2d 130 La. 1990
Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., (La.App.
Hurst v. Massey 570 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
in support of reversal of the trial court judgment.
White v. Monsanto Co. 570 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Steadman v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., supra ; (La.App.
Mahfouz v. JACE Oilfield Sales and Service, Inc. 569 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
: "In interpreting the statute, this court has held that compensation shall be an *1077 employee's exclusive remedy against his employer for an unintentional injury covered by the act, but that nothing shall prevent an employee from recovering from his employer under general law for intentional tort.
Cazenave v. Pierce 568 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Plaintiff counters Pierce's argument by citing a subsequent case, in which the Supreme Court re-examined the issue of intent as it pertains to intentional torts perpetrated by an employee.
Bonin v. Bon Electrical Contractors, Inc. 567 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
: “In interpreting the statute, this court has held that compensation shall be an employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer for an unintentional injury covered by the act, but that nothing shall prevent an employee from recovering from his employer under general law for an intentional tort.
Dycus v. Martin Marietta Corp. 568 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Cooper v. Olinde 565 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Lyons v. Airdyne Lafayette, Inc. 563 So. 2d 260 La. 1990
Baugh v. Redmond 565 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
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
That case, involved a battery in which plaintiff’s supervisor and co-worker shocked plaintiff with the back of a charged condenser while engaged in “horseplay”.
Lyons v. Airdyne Lafayette, Inc. 558 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
More recently, the Supreme Court further clarified the meaning of an intentional act arising in the context of a battery occurring as the result of a practical joke.
Holmes v. Pottharst 557 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
in which the Supreme Court held that any "offensive contact" resulting from an act intended by the employer to cause the employee to suffer such contact, may constitute an intentional tort.
Kennedy v. Parrino 555 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Penalber v. Blount 550 So. 2d 577 La. 1989
Breland v. Schilling 550 So. 2d 609 La. 1989
Thus, when a company officer administered an electric shock to a worker, intending to play a good-natured practical joke, yet nonetheless producing serious injury to the victim, we held the actor liable for all consequences flowing from his act.
Kersh v. Heffner 542 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
an employee/employer suit.
Barber v. Lamarca 542 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Bourgeois v. Jordan 527 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
at page 390: "In interpreting the statute, this court has held that compensation shall be an employee's exclusive remedy against his employer for an unintentional injury covered by the act, but that nothing shall prevent an employee from recovering from his employer under general law for an intentional tort
Schexnider v. McGuill 526 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
the latest expression by the Louisiana Supreme Court on intentional torts, is not applicable to the case at bar.
Chaisson v. Henning 525 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
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.” More recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court further clarified the meaning of an intentional act arising in the context of a battery occurring during “horseplay.” In Caudle , the Court found that an intentional battery had occurred when plaintiff’s employer’s principal owner and chief e
Cudges v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital 514 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
to determine if the ruling of that case is applicable to the case sub judice.