Opinion
No. 2006-CC-0898.
June 23, 2006.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette.
The undisputed facts in this tort case show that plaintiff's injury was not intentional, and therefore, plaintiff's exclusive remedy is workers' compensation under La. R.S. 12:1032. See, Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La. 3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208, holding that "`[s]ubstantially certain to follow' requires more than a reasonable probability that an injury will occur and `certain' has been defined to mean `inevitable' or `incapable of failing.'" Jasmin v. HNV Cent. Riverfront Corp., [94-1497 (La.App. 4 Cir.8/30/94), 642 So.2d] supra at 312. "[A]n employer's mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the `substantial certainty requirement." Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 618 So.2d 1140, 1142 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1993), writ denied, 629 So.2d 347 (La. 1993). "Further, mere knowledge and appreciate of a risk does not constitute intent, nor does reckless or wanton conduct by an employer constitute intentional wrongdoing." Id. (Citing Tapia v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 590 So.2d 806, 807-808 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1991)). The ruling of the trial court is reversed, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and plaintiff's petition is dismissed with prejudice at his cost.