![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
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.
Utilizing the co-employee “intentional injury” exception to Alabama’s exclusive remedy rule [see Ala. Code § 25-5-11(b)], the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of two co-employee/defendants in a civil action filed against them by an injured worker. The worker sustained severe burns when the employer began using a process of mixing materials that produced a chemical reaction and explosion that splashed molten lead onto the claimant. The worker contended his co-employees engaged in conduct that was substantially certain to cause injury. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff worker had failed to show any actual evidence that the co-employees intended him harm. Moreover, there was no evidence that the co-employees were aware that the employment actions were substantially certain to result in harm to the plaintiff.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law(LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Means v. Glover, 2021 Ala. LEXIS 55 (June 4, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.02, note 4.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.