Miller v. Couvillion - 96-136 (La. App. 3 Cir 06/05/96), 676 So. 2d 668

Rule:

The Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act provides for compensation if an employee receives personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1031. As a general rule, the rights and remedies granted to an employee therein are exclusive of all rights and remedies against his employer, any officer or principal of the employer, or any co-employee. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032(A)(1)(a). However, an exception to this rule provides that nothing therein shall affect the liability of an employer, principal, officer, or co-employee resulting from an "intentional act." La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032(B). Also, the intention need not be malicious nor need it be an intention to inflict actual damage. It is sufficient if the actor intends to inflict either a harmful or offensive contact without the other's consent.

Facts:

In June 1993, plaintiff employee Ray Miller was injured when he fell off a cinder block pad while assisting his manager demonstrate the latter’s karate skills against the pad. Plaintiffs, the employee and his wife, filed an intentional tort action under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032(B) against defendants, his employer and its insurer, Chuck Couvillion et al., alleging that the manager's attacks against the pad constituted an intentional tort under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032(B). The trial court dismissed the suit and held that under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032(A)(1)(a), plaintiffs' exclusive remedy was under the Louisiana workers' compensation law. Plaintiffs appealed. 

Issue:

Was the dismissal of the intentional tort action under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032(B) proper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment. The court held that when the manager kicked the pad, the manager did not desire to bring about the employee's injury or believe that it was substantially certain to occur. The manager directed his acts against the pad, not against the plaintiff employee. Therefore, the manager did not commit an intentional act. Thus, the dismissal of the action was proper.