Facts
- Sidney Bazley, a Jefferson Parish garbage worker, was injured while mounting the back of a parish garbage truck during the course of his employment.
- Bazley alleged his injuries were caused by (1) a co-employee garbage-truck driver’s conduct and (2) a private motorist, Sordo Tortorich, whose car struck him.
- Against the co-employee, Bazley labeled the conduct “intentional,” alleging operational and maintenance failures, including operating without a working horn, disregarding maintenance standards, failing to keep a lookout, failing to stop in a safe place, and failing to warn of danger.
- Bazley did not allege that the co-employee desired Bazley’s injury or believed injury was substantially certain to result.
- Louisiana’s workers’ compensation statute, La. R.S. 23:1032 (as amended in 1976), made workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy against specified persons (including co-employees acting within the course and scope of employment), except for “intentional tort.”
Issues
- Whether La. R.S. 23:1032 constitutionally makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries caused by a co-employee, except for injuries resulting from an intentional tort.
- Whether Bazley’s petition stated a claim within the intentional-tort exception, or instead alleged only negligence barred by La. R.S. 23:1032.
Decision
- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the trial court’s judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action as to the co-employee.
- The court held La. R.S. 23:1032’s exclusivity rule (with an intentional-tort exception) is constitutional and bars negligence suits against co-employees for work-related injuries.
- The court held the intentional-tort exception requires allegations that the actor desired the consequences or was substantially certain the injury would occur.
- Because Bazley alleged only operational failures and omissions without alleging desire to injure or substantial certainty of injury, the petition did not state an intentional tort claim against the co-employee.
Legal Principles
- Under La. R.S. 23:1032, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for an employee’s work-related injury against specified persons, including a co-employee acting within the course and scope of employment, unless the injury results from the co-employee’s intentional tort.
- For the intentional-tort exception, “intent” requires that the actor (1) desired the consequences of the act, or (2) believed the consequences were substantially certain to follow.
- Allegations amounting to negligence or gross negligence (e.g., failure to maintain equipment, failure to warn, failure to keep a lookout) do not satisfy the intentional-tort exception without pleaded facts showing desire or substantial certainty.
- Limiting an employee to compensation benefits against covered defendants, while preserving an intentional-tort exception, does not violate due process, equal protection, or constitutional access-to-courts guarantees under Louisiana law.
Conclusion
The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of workers’ compensation exclusivity as to co-employees and held that only true intentional torts—requiring a desire to cause injury or substantial certainty that injury will occur—fall outside the exclusivity bar; Bazley’s allegations sounded in negligence and were dismissed as to the co-employee.