Summary
In Lyons v. Airdyne Lafayette, Inc., 563 So.2d 260 (La. 1990), the Supreme Court stated in aper curiam decision that "[t]here is circumstantial evidence from which one could reasonably infer that the act was intentional, and weighing of factual evidence is inappropriate on a motion for summary judgment".
Summary of this case from Wood v. BecnelOpinion
No. 90-C-0811.
June 22, 1990.
APPEAL FROM 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, STATE OF LOUISIANA.
Granted. There is a genuine issue of material fact whether plaintiff's co-employee intentionally shot the stream of compressed air at plaintiff and injured him or whether the co-employee accidentally released the stream while repairing the compressor. There is circumstantial evidence from which one could reasonably infer that the act was intentional, and weighing of factual evidence is inappropriate on a motion for summary judgment. The case of Caudle v. Betts, 512 So.2d 389 (La. 1987), while presenting similar issues, was decided after trial on the merits.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed, the motion for summary judgment is denied, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.