Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
571 So. 2d 130, 1990 WL 192894 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who consents to a potentially harmful contact during a workplace emergency cannot sustain an intentional tort claim against an employer or co-employee, which would otherwise be an exception to the worker's compensation exclusive remedy rule, unless the consent was invalidated by a substantial mistake that was known to or induced by the employer.
Facts:
- George Fricke, III, a foreman at Baumer Foods, Inc., and Melvin Davillier, Sr. were employees at the company's mustard mill.
- Roger Baumer was the 76-year-old plant superintendent.
- Fricke discovered Davillier lying unconscious at the bottom of an 18-foot deep mustard tank and alerted Baumer.
- Baumer began to descend a rope ladder into the tank to rescue Davillier.
- Fricke persuaded the older Baumer to let him go instead, stating, 'I'm lighter than you. Let me go.'
- Fricke then descended into the tank while Baumer went to retrieve a rope and get additional help.
- Upon returning, Baumer found Fricke unconscious beside Davillier at the bottom of the tank.
- As a result of exposure to the vapors, Davillier died and Fricke sustained severe brain damage.
Procedural Posture:
- The families of George Fricke, III and Melvin Davillier, Sr. filed tort actions against Baumer Foods, Inc., Roger Baumer, and others in the trial court.
- The three separate actions were consolidated.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the suits were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the worker's compensation statute.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' actions.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether an intentional tort had been committed.
- The defendants (Baumer Foods, et al.) then brought the case before the Supreme Court of Louisiana for review.
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 a plant superintendent commit an intentional tort, thereby creating an exception to the worker's compensation exclusive remedy rule, by allowing an employee to enter a dangerous environment to perform a rescue when the employee voluntarily consented to the action during an unforeseen emergency?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Justice
No. The superintendent's actions did not constitute an intentional tort because the employee consented to the harmful contact. The exclusive remedy of the worker's compensation statute applies when an employee validly consents to a workplace risk. A foundational element of an intentional tort like battery is the absence of the victim's consent, based on the principle of 'volenti non fit injuria'—to one who is willing, no wrong is done. The undisputed facts show that Fricke not only agreed but persuaded Baumer to let him undertake the rescue. This consent is considered valid because there is no evidence that Baumer had superior knowledge of the danger or that Fricke was acting under a mistake known to or induced by Baumer. Both men were reacting to an unforeseen emergency, and without evidence that Baumer knew Fricke's consent was based on a mistake about the true extent of the harm, the consent remains an effective bar to an intentional tort claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the high threshold for proving the intentional tort exception to worker's compensation exclusivity in Louisiana. It reinforces that consent is a powerful defense, even in inherently dangerous situations. The ruling establishes that for an employee's consent to be invalidated, the plaintiff must show not only that they were mistaken about the risk but that the employer had superior knowledge of that risk and was aware of the employee's mistake. This creates a substantial barrier for plaintiffs in cases involving emergencies or sudden, unexpected workplace dangers, thereby strengthening the exclusivity protections of the worker's compensation system.
Unlock the full brief for Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.