Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A divided New York appellate court, applying the exclusive remedy provisions of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act—the employee’s injury occurred there—recently held that a trial court properly granted summary judgment to an employer in an employee's action under intentional tort action against the employer [see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:15-8] where the alleged intentional tort—the employer's removal of a safety screen from a hot leather stamping machine—was but one factor to consider. The court pointed out that there were no prior incidents or injuries caused by the machine, no evidence of deliberate deceit or fraudulent conduct by the employer, no OSHA violations, and the accident would not have occurred absent the employee's decision to retrieve a piece of stuck leather with his hand rather than the normal procedure. The employer’s conduct, if true as alleged, was not “so egregious as to constitute an intentional wrong.”
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Lebron v. SML Veteran Leather, LLC, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5580 (Aug. 20, 2013) [2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5580)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.03 [103.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site