# Harris v. Olivier's Contractors

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · December 10, 2014 · 14 La.App. 3 Cir. 765

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816795

## Case

- **Full name:** Sylvester HARRIS v. OLIVIER'S CONTRACTORS
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** December 10, 2014
- **Citations:** 14 La.App. 3 Cir. 765; 155 So. 3d 652; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 2927; 2014 WL 6917235
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Amy
- **Judges:** Amy, Ezell, Pickett
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816795

## Opinion text

AMY, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
|¶1 agree with the majority’s affirmation of the rulings on the defendant’s exceptions. However, I respectfully dissent from the opinion’s resolution of the foundational issue of whether La.R.S. 23:1032.1 requires that an employee prove all elements of a tort action. In this case, the element at issue is that of fault/negligence. Affirming the trial court’s finding on this point, the majority concludes that La.R.S. 23:1032.1 does not require, demonstration of that element as the statute is punitive in nature.
In my opinion, however, the actual penalty to the employer is the risk of being “sue[d] ... for all legal damages” which would eliminate the employer’s protections under the workers’ compensation provisions and expose it to liability for general damages as well as a less structured framework for loss of earnings, etc. Simply put, I find that La.R.S. 23:1032.1 provides an avenue for an employee’s recovery under a general tort cause of action. *664 With that “penalty” in mind, I do not see language otherwise within La.R.S. 23:1032.1, or in surrounding statutory authority, that would eliminate a requirement as fundamental as a plaintiffs burden of proof in a suit for “legal damages.” For that reason, I find error in the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff was not required to establish negligence. I would reverse on that issue and remand for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816795. Public record. Not legal advice.