Marino v. Martin's Oil Country Tubular, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Marino v. Martin's Oil Country Tubular, Inc.

931 So. 2d 1089, 2006 La. LEXIS 2007, 2006 WL 1735251

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 23, 2006

DocketNo. 2006-CC-0898

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 931 So. 2d 1089 (Marino v. Martin's Oil Country Tubular, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marino v. Martin's Oil Country Tubular, Inc., 931 So. 2d 1089, 2006 La. LEXIS 2007, 2006 WL 1735251 (La. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The undisputed facts in this tort case show that plaintiffs injury was not intentional, and therefore, plaintiffs 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 “ ‘[substantially certain to follow1 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 [311] 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), unit 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 plaintiffs petition is dismissed with prejudice at his cost.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The undisputed facts in this tort case show that plaintiffs injury was not intentional, and therefore, plaintiffs 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 “ ‘[substantially certain to follow1 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 [311] 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), unit 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 plaintiffs petition is dismissed with prejudice at his cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

931 So. 2d 1089, 2006 La. LEXIS 2007, 2006 WL 1735251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-martins-oil-country-tubular-inc-la-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack