Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 8, 2013; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Plaintiffs Louis Guillory and Dianna Simien, city bus drivers, filed a lawsuit against the City of Lake Charles, claiming that the City intentionally required them to operate defective buses, resulting in severe injuries. They argue that this situation invokes the intentional act exception to the Workers’ Compensation Act, allowing them to pursue a lawsuit in district court. The City responded with a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that the Plaintiffs could only seek remedies through workers’ compensation. The trial court granted the City’s motion, leading to the appeal.
The appeal examines whether the trial court erred in its decision. Guillory and Simien had long complained about poorly maintained buses, which they claim caused their injuries due to inadequate seats and other components. Guillory has received over $271,000 in workers’ compensation benefits, while Simien received nearly $20,000. The Plaintiffs allege the City was aware that their injuries were highly likely to occur but neglected to repair the buses.
In reviewing the case, the court applies a de novo standard for summary judgment, evaluating whether there are genuine issues of material fact and if the City is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Workers’ Compensation Act typically provides the exclusive remedy for employees injured during their employment, unless the injury results from an intentional act, which is narrowly defined. The court clarifies that an intentional act requires either a conscious desire for the result or knowledge that the result is substantially certain to follow from the action. The Louisiana Supreme Court has set a high standard for what constitutes substantial certainty, indicating that it involves an injury that is inevitable. The court ultimately affirms the trial court’s granting of summary judgment, indicating that the Plaintiffs did not meet the burden to prove an exception to the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Plaintiffs’ allegations do not constitute an intentional tort, as the standard for such claims is set high. Precedent cases demonstrate that an employer's failure to provide safety equipment or maintain safe working conditions does not meet this threshold. Even with knowledge of ongoing issues, such as faulty driver’s seats, Plaintiffs cannot pursue a lawsuit under established jurisprudence. The case of Abney v. Exxon Corp. is distinguished; there, the employer ignored hazardous conditions, while in the current case, Plaintiffs acknowledged that their supervisors regularly submitted buses for repairs and documented maintenance efforts. Attempts at remediation negate any claim of intent to cause harm. Plaintiffs' assertion that prior injuries indicate intent is insufficient, as mere probability of injury does not equate to intentionality. Consequently, the City’s actions fell within the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Act, leading to the affirmation of the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Lake Charles, with costs assessed against the Appellants.
