Court Opinion

ID: 9899996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 01:00:36.040984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:57.999116
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30354         Document: 00516972943             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 23-30354
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               November 17, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   Edilberto Caceres,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Preload, L.L.C.,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:21-CV-3834
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Elrod, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant Edilberto Caceres appeals the district court’s
   grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Preload, L.L.C., on his
   survivorship and wrongful death actions purportedly brought under the
   intentional act exception to Louisiana’s worker’s compensation scheme in
   La. R.S. 23:1032(B). This case arises out of the death of Caceres’s son, Isaid

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30354      Document: 00516972943           Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                     No. 23-30354

   Figueroa, who was fatally injured while working on scaffolding in the course
   and scope of his employment with Preload.
          We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de
   novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Brand Servs., L.L.C. v.
   Irex Corp., 909 F.3d 151, 155–56 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Reingold v. Swiftships,
   Inc., 126 F.3d 645, 646 (5th Cir. 1997)). “Summary judgment is proper only
   when it appears that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the
   moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 156 (quoting
   Reingold, 126 F.3d at 646). We view the facts in the light most favorable to
   the non-movant and draw all inferences in his favor. Id. (citing Reingold, 126
   F.3d at 646).
          Louisiana’s Worker’s Compensation Law precludes a tort suit against
   an employer for a workplace injury unless the plaintiff can show that the
   injury resulted from an “intentional act.” La. R.S. 23:1032(B). The
   intentional act exception is construed narrowly. Reeves v. Structural Pres. Sys.,
   98-1795, p. 6 (La. 3/12/99), 731 So. 2d 208, 211. To constitute “intent,” the
   plaintiff must show that the employer either consciously desired the physical
   result of its conduct or knew the result was “substantially certain to follow”
   from its conduct. Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So. 2d 475, 482 (La. 1981); see also
   Stanley v. Airgas-Sw., Inc., 2015-0274, p. 1 (La. 4/24/15), 171 So. 3d 915, 916
   (per curiam).
          “Substantial certainty” demands “more than a reasonable probability
   that an injury will occur” and requires something closer to “inevitable or
   incapable of failing.” Stanley, 171 So. 3d at 916. (quoting Reeves v. Structural
   Pres. Sys., 98–1795, pp. 9–10 (La. 3/12/99), 731 So. 2d 208, 213); see also Rolls
   ex rel. A.R. v. Packaging Corp. of Am. Inc., 34 F.4th 431, 442 (5th Cir. 2022)
   (alteration in original) (noting that “[e]ven knowledge of a high degree of
   probability that injury will occur is insufficient to establish that the employer

                                          2
Case: 23-30354      Document: 00516972943           Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                     No. 23-30354

   was substantially certain that injury would occur” (quoting Wilson v. Kirby
   Corp., No. 12-0080, 2012 WL 1565415, at *2 (E.D. La. May 1, 2012)). A belief
   that “someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace
   practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act.” Batiste
   v. Bayou Steel Corp., 2010-1561, p.2 (La. 10/1/10), 45 So. 3d 167, 168 (quoting
   Reeves, 98–1795, at pp. 9–10, 731 So. 2d at 213).
          In a related suit against Preload by another employee who was injured
   in the same incident as Figueroa, another panel of this court recently affirmed
   the grant of summary judgment to Preload based on largely the same evidence
   as in this case because the evidence did not show the intentional act exception
   applied. Harvey v. Preload, L.L.C., No. 23-31020, 2023 WL 6442598, at *2-3
   (5th Cir. Oct. 3, 2023) (unpublished). We find this decision very persuasive.
          Here, the district court correctly found that Caceres failed to create a
   genuine issue of material fact that Preload committed an intentional act under
   § 23:1032(B). Caceres relies on evidence that he contends, in the aggregate,
   adds up to satisfy the “substantial certainty” standard. However,
   importantly, Preload was not aware of several of these facts prior to the
   accident. Harvey, 2023 WL 6442598, at *3. That an expert for Caceres
   testified it was his opinion that the accident was inevitable makes no
   difference, because there is still no evidence that Preload knew the accident
   was inevitable. See Populars v. Trimac Transp., Inc., No. 22-30413, 2023 WL
   20866, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 3, 2023) (emphasis added) (affirming summary
   judgment for the defendant despite evidence that the plaintiff’s injury was
   inevitable because the plaintiff failed to show that the employer “knew that
   [the plaintiff’s] injury was inevitable”).
          While Caceres’s evidence might raise a fact issue on gross negligence
   or even recklessness, we cannot say there is a genuine dispute of material fact
   that Preload knew to a substantial certainty that Caceres would be injured.

                                           3
Case: 23-30354     Document: 00516972943          Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                   No. 23-30354

   See id; Harvey, 2023 WL 6442598, at *3. Because Caceres’s claims do not fall
   within the intentional act exception of § 23:1032(B), summary judgment was
   appropriate.
         The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                        4