Miller v. Sattler Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 27 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2013–CC–2558.,2013–CC–2558.
• Citation: Miller v. Sattler Supply Co., 132 So.3d 386 (La. 2014)
• Parties: Ashton MILLER, JR., et al. v. SATTLER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., and Geico.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

132 So.3d 386

Ashton MILLER, JR., et al.

v.SATTLER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., and Geico.

No. 2013–CC–2558.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 2014.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs' decedent died as a result of injuries sustained in a workplace accident, which occurred when a large engine block he was cleaning fell on him.Plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant tort suit against decedent's employer and its insurer, alleging the employer failed to adhere to proper safety procedures, which resulted in decedent's death.Defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging plaintiffs' exclusive remedy was in workers' compensation, as plaintiffs were unable to show an intentional act on the employer's part.The district court denied summary judgment, and the court of appeal denied supervisory writs.This application followed.

To recover in tort against defendants under La.R.S. 23:1032(B), plaintiffs must prove the employer (1) consciously desired the physical result of its act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from its conduct, or (2) knew that the result is substantially certain to follow from its conduct, whatever its desire may be as to that result.Moreau v. Moreau's Material Yard, 12–1096(La.9/21/12), 98 So.3d 297.In the instant case, plaintiffs do not allege the employer consciously desired to cause harm to decedent.Rather, they assert decedent's injuries were substantially certain to follow as a result of inadequate equipment and procedures.

In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98–1795at pp. 9–10(La.3/12/99), 731 So.2d 208, 213, we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows:

Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers' compensation.

* * *

“ ‘Substantially 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., supraat 312 [La.App. 4 Cir.1994].“[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 appreciation of a risk does not constitute intent, nor does reckless or wanton conduct by an employer constitute intentional wrongdoing.”Id.(citingTapia v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc.,590 So.2d 806, 807–808(La.App. 4 Cir.1991)).

In the instant case...