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

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.