Bazley v. Tortorich
397 So. 2d 475 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's worker's compensation statute can constitutionally bar an employee from suing a co-employee in tort for a negligently caused, work-related injury. The statutory exception for an "intentional act" requires that the tortfeasor either desired the physical results of their act or believed they were substantially certain to follow.
Facts:
- Sidney Bazley was employed as a Jefferson Parish garbage worker.
- While at work, Bazley's co-employee was operating the parish garbage truck.
- Bazley was in the process of mounting the back of the garbage truck when he was struck by a car driven by a third party, Sardo Tortorich.
- Bazley claimed his co-employee's actions contributed to the accident, alleging the co-employee failed to maintain a working horn, failed to keep a proper lookout, and failed to warn Bazley of the oncoming danger.
- In his lawsuit, Bazley characterized his co-employee's negligent actions as 'intentional' but did not allege that the co-employee desired to cause harm or believed that harm was substantially certain to result from his actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Sidney Bazley filed a tort suit against his unidentified co-employee truck driver and others in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The co-employee defendant filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing that the worker's compensation statute provided the exclusive remedy.
- The trial court granted the exception, dismissing Bazley's suit against his co-employee.
- Bazley, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The court of appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the statute would be unconstitutional if it barred such a tort claim.
- The co-employee defendant, as applicant, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Louisiana worker's compensation statute, which grants co-employees immunity from suits for negligently caused work-related injuries but allows suits for 'intentional acts,' violate the state or federal constitutions by denying an injured employee due process, equal protection, or access to the courts?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Justice
No, the Louisiana worker's compensation statute does not violate the state or federal constitutions. The statute's exclusive remedy provision, which grants tort immunity to co-employees for non-intentional acts, is a constitutional exercise of legislative power. First, the court defines the statutory term 'intentional act' to mean an 'intentional tort,' which requires that the actor either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, or (2) knows that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct. The court rejects the plaintiff's argument that 'intentional act' means any voluntary act, as this would thwart the legislative purpose of broadening tort immunity to control employer costs. Second, the court finds the statute constitutional under the rational basis test. The state has a legitimate purpose in creating a comprehensive, no-fault worker's compensation system, and granting immunity to co-employees is rationally related to that purpose by reducing litigation and insurance costs for the employer's enterprise. The law does not infringe on a fundamental right or target a suspect class, and therefore does not violate due process, equal protection, or the state's access-to-courts provision.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the scope of co-employee tort immunity under Louisiana's worker's compensation law by narrowly defining the 'intentional act' exception. By aligning the statutory language with the traditional definition of an intentional tort, the court effectively prevents plaintiffs from circumventing the exclusive remedy rule by pleading negligence claims as 'intentional.' This ruling reinforces the legislative intent behind the 1976 amendments to broaden immunity and underscores the 'grand bargain' of worker's compensation: employees receive certain, no-fault benefits in exchange for relinquishing their right to sue employers and co-employees for negligence.
