Miller v. Couvillion
1996 WL 293138, 676 So. 2d 668 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an employee's action to qualify as an 'intentional act' under the exception to the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act, the employee must have either desired to bring about the physical results of the act or believed that those results were substantially certain to follow. An act directed at an inanimate object that foreseeably but unintentionally injures a person is considered negligence, not an intentional tort.
Facts:
- Ray Miller was employed as a salesclerk at Chuck's Ace Hardware.
- Rick Savage, the store manager and Miller's co-employee, was attempting to break a cinder block pad with his bare hand on a forklift.
- Miller stood on the cinder block pad, which was resting on a forklift, to help stabilize it for Savage.
- After two failed attempts to break the block with a karate-style chop, Savage prepared to stop.
- As Miller was getting off the forklift, Savage simultaneously kicked the cinder pad.
- The kick caused Miller to fall from the forklift, and he sustained a severe cut to his arm on a broken mirror frame.
- Witness testimony indicated that Savage's intent was to break the cinder pad, not to injure Miller.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray Miller and his wife filed a tort suit in a Louisiana trial court against his employer, Chuck Couvillion d/b/a Chuck's Ace Hardware, its insurer, and his co-employee, Rick Savage.
- The case was bifurcated, with the trial court first hearing evidence only on the issue of liability.
- The trial court judge ruled that Miller's exclusive remedy was under the worker's compensation system and signed a judgment dismissing the tort action.
- Ray Miller and his wife (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 co-employee's act of kicking a cinder block, which the plaintiff was standing on to stabilize it, constitute an 'intentional act' under the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act's exception when the act was directed at the block and not the plaintiff, even if injury was foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Yelverton, Judge
No. A co-employee's act of kicking a cinder block that a plaintiff was standing on does not constitute an 'intentional act' under the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act's exception because the act was directed at an object, not the person, and the actor neither desired the injury nor believed it was substantially certain to occur. The court applied the standard from 'Bazley v. Tortorich,' which defines an intentional act as one where the defendant either desired to bring about the physical results or believed they were substantially certain to follow. The court found Savage's intent was to break the cinder pad, not to injure Miller. It distinguished this case from intentional batteries, where an act is directed at a person to cause harmful or offensive contact. The court adopted the trial judge's reasoning that while Savage's act was reckless and negligent due to Miller's position, it did not rise to the level of an intentional tort because the act was directed at the pad, not at Miller's person. Foreseeability of injury amounts to negligence, which is covered exclusively by worker's compensation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for plaintiffs to meet the 'intentional act' exception to the worker's compensation exclusivity rule in Louisiana. It clarifies that even reckless or grossly negligent conduct that results in a foreseeable injury will be treated as negligence, not an intentional tort, if the act itself was not directed at the person and the actor did not desire or have substantial certainty of the resulting injury. The ruling limits an employee's ability to bring tort claims for injuries resulting from workplace horseplay or foolish acts, thereby protecting employers and co-employees from tort liability in such situations and channeling recovery through the worker's compensation system.
