Opinion ID: 470318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Employer Negligence

Text: 47 Under the Workers' Compensation system, Robertson received benefits from his employer without regard to either his or his employer's fault. In return, his employer received relief from suit. Such is the legislative compromise. See Franklin v. Oilfield Heavy-Haulers, 478 So.2d 549, 556-57 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985). Under LSA-R.S. 23:1101, the employee may nonetheless maintain an action against liable third parties in addition to his compensation claim against his employer. 48 The rule in Louisiana has always been that the negligence of the employer does not bar its insurance company's right to recover from a liable third party the amount of benefits the employer paid out to the injured employee. Vidrine v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co., 263 La. 300, 268 So.2d 233 (1972); LeJeune v. Highlands Insurance Company, 287 So.2d 531 (La.App. 3d Cir.1973), writ ref'd, 290 So.2d 903 (La.1974). In 1985, the Louisiana legislature amended LSA-R.S. 23:1101 to provide that where the recovery of the employee is decreased as a result of comparative negligence, the recovery of the person who has paid compensation or has become obligated to pay compensation shall be reduced by the same percentage. La. Acts 1985, No. 931 (quoted in Franklin, 478 So.2d at 557). The legislature did not, however, amend the Workers' Compensation statute to provide that the recovery of the person who has paid compensation shall be reduced in proportion to the employer's negligence. 49 Superior argues that the trial court should have assigned a percentage of fault to the employer-intervenor, Employers Insurance of Wausau, to reduce its recovery. 5 Superior claims that the legislature's 1979 resuscitation of the concept of comparative negligence in art. 2323 supports its position. We are unpersuaded. 6 50 First, the language of art. 2323 itself, which reads as follows, does not support its position: 51 When contributory negligence is applicable to a claim for damages, its effects shall be as follows: if a person suffers injury, death or loss as the result partly of his own negligence and partly as a result of the fault of another person or persons, the claim for damages recoverable shall be reduced in proportion to the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering the injury, death or loss. 52 La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2323 (West 1986 Supp.) (emphasis added). As contributory negligence has never been applicable to an employer's claim for reimbursement, art. 2323 does not trigger the application of comparative fault. 53 Second, any inequities now present in the employer's ability to escape the application of comparative fault were present to an even greater degree in the era of contributory negligence. Franklin, supra (The inequities of which these defendants complain have existed for years). 54 Third, we are persuaded, as was the appellate court in Franklin, that 55 any adjustment in the apportionment of the loss is a policy matter, just as the change from contributory negligence to comparative negligence was a policy matter. Therefore, [in Louisiana's code system] it is primarily a matter for legislative consideration. 56 Id. at 557. All three reasons counsel against accepting Superior's contention, and we therefore reject it.