Case Name: Murphy J. McKEE v. INSPECTORATE AMERICA CORPORATION, Chas. Martin Inspection and Controls, Inc., and John Robbie
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1994-04-14
Citations: 636 So. 2d 305
Docket Number: No. 93-CA-1253
Parties: Murphy J. McKEE v. INSPECTORATE AMERICA CORPORATION, Chas. Martin Inspection and Controls, Inc., and John Robbie.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, C.J., and KLEES, BYRNES, ARMSTRONG and PLOTKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 636
Pages: 305–309

Head Matter:
Murphy J. McKEE v. INSPECTORATE AMERICA CORPORATION, Chas. Martin Inspection and Controls, Inc., and John Robbie.
No. 93-CA-1253.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
April 14, 1994.
Bubrig, Waid & Conner, Brian J. Waid, New Orleans, and Archie B. Creech, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant, Murphy J. McKee.
Allen & Gooch, William H. Parker, III, Lafayette, for defendants-appellees, Inspectorate American Corp., Chas. Martin Inspection and Controls, Inc., Chas. Martin Corp., Inc., and John Robbie.
Before SCHOTT, C.J., and KLEES, BYRNES, ARMSTRONG and PLOTKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
JjKLEES, Judge.
Plaintiff, Murphy J. McKee, appeals the trial court decision granting the defendants' exception of no cause of action. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we reverse.
Plaintiff, unsure as to who his actual employer is, sued Inspectorate America Corporation, Chas. Martin Inspection and Controls, Inc., Chas. Martin Corporation, and John Robbie in tort after he was allegedly injured in an automobile accident which occurred while he was engaged in work related activity. In his petition, plaintiff claims that the accident, which transpired after plaintiff fell asleep while driving his vehicle, was "caused by the defendant's outrageous and intentional conduct in requiring petitioner to work grossly excessive hours without relief, thereby placing him at risk." Plaintiff also asserts that the "acts and omissions of defendants were intentional and certain or reasonably certain to result in petitioner's injury."
The trial court, which granted the defendants' exception of no cause of action, found that plaintiff had no remedy under tort law and was limited to bringing his action under the Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, plaintiff enumerates the following assignments of error: 1) that a petition which alleges injury due to an intentional act may not be dismissed through the granting of an exception of no cause of action and 2) that if plaintiffs petition failed to adequately allege an injury resulting from an intentional act, he should have been granted leave to amend his petition. Since we find plaintiffs first assignment of error to be of merit, plaintiffs second assignment of error will not be discussed.
The gravamen of plaintiffs appeal is that his intentional tort action cannot be dismissed via an exception of no cause of action. Although we agree with the defendants that plaintiffs averment is not consistent with notions of judicial economy, the relevant jurisprudence supports plaintiffs contention.
In Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), 553 So.2d 472 (La.1989), the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed an appellate court's affirmation of the granting of a defendant's exception of no cause of action, stating:
Plaintiffs petition asserts that defendants intended to injure him or knew or should have known that his injury was substantially certain to follow. Conditions of the mind' such as malice, knowledge, and I ¡.intent may be alleged generally. La. C.C.P. art. 856. Furthermore, the purpose of the exception of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency of the petition and is triable on the face of the papers. Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984). The merit of plaintiffs claim is to be determined after findings of fact upon motion for summary judgment or trial on the merits.
The order in Carey has been interpreted to imply that an exception of no cause of action is an improper vehicle to dismiss an intentional tort claim against a plaintiffs employer. Trahan v. Trans-Louisiana Gas Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 30, 31 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1993). Considering the above, the judgment of the trial court granting the exception of no cause of action is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BYRNES and PLOTKIN, JJ., dissent with written reasons.