Could Dow Worker Burned in Explosion Sue for Personal Injury?

What Do You Think?

The exclusive remedy rule protects employers from personal injury lawsuits by limiting most injured employees to workers’ compensation benefits. In Louisiana, and other states, employees can skirt that rule by showing that the employer acted intentionally. A case involving a chemical plant explosion illustrates the types of actions and inactions that can expose an employer to such lawsuits.

In that case, the claimant’s coworker at Dow was tasked with preparing machinery for valve work to ensure there were no hydrocarbons present. Hydrocarbons could cause an explosion. He closed off the valves and padded the area with nitrogen. He ran a test to check for hydrocarbons and found none. 

It was Dow’s policy that the lines be cleared with nitrogen, but he decided that step wasn't needed. He announced the valve was “ready to go.” Another employee worked on the valve and an explosion occurred, severely burning him.

As a Dow witness explained, the coworker was in a "comfort zone of [skipping the step] because [he had] done it in the past and nothing had gone wrong." The witness said no one knew, until then, that the coworker had been taking shortcuts. The witness also denied that any other workers were bypassing that step.

An injured employee may be able to sue for personal injury if he can show that the employer intentionally injured him. In Louisiana, intent is present if the employer:

1. Consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or 
2. Knows that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result. 

The employee argued that his injury was substantially certain to follow from Dow’s failure to test the line for nitrogen.

Could the injured employee sue Dow for money damages?

A. Yes. There was a high risk of explosion because the coworker didn’t clear the line.

B. No. The coworker ran other tests, believing they were sufficient to establish the absence of hydrocarbons.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Saizon v. Dow Chemical Company, No. 2025 CA 1139 (La. Ct. App. 04/24/26), which found that the employee didn’t establish that his injury was intentional.

"Substantially certain to follow" requires more than a reasonable probability that an injury will occur, the court said. Basically, the injury has to be inevitable. 

It was clear here that the coworker violated safety rules. At the same time, he did some testing, including the LEL test. Moreover, the worker was in a “comfort zone” regarding clearing the line because he had skipped that step before without negative result. This helped show that the explosion and injury was not inevitable–and, in fact, not expected. Further, there was no evidence that anyone at Dow knew the coworker was taking shortcuts.

Finally, the absence of previous similar incidents undermined any argument that Dow knew the incident was likely to occur. 

“While we recognize the tragic nature of this situation,” the court said, there was no evidence that Dow intended to injure the employee. The court dismissed the case.

Share This Article: