# Carey v. U M C

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · October 12, 1989 · 550 So. 2d 949

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7577747

## Case

- **Full name:** Byron CAREY v. U M C (UNITED MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS)
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** October 12, 1989
- **Citations:** 550 So. 2d 949; 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1793; 1989 WL 124618
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chehardy
- **Judges:** Chehardy, Dufresne, Wicker
- **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/7577747

## Opinion text

CHEHARDY, Judge,
concurring.
In McDonald v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., 397 So.2d 846 (La.App. 4 Cir.1981), I authored a concurring opinion in which Judge Jim Garrison joined. There I stated my analysis and interpretation of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s two-prong broadened definition of “intentional act” found in Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981). In McDonald I stated the two-prong test constituted a “distinction without a difference” (at 849) and that, as expressive of the view relating to intent in W. Prosser, The Law of Torts, Ch. 2, § 8 (4th Ed.1971), the definition inherently includes the “should have known standard.” That interpretation was rejected by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, 444 So.2d 621 (La.1984). However, I continue to adhere to the view I expressed in McDonald , although I concur with the result in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7577747. Public record. Not legal advice.