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...
Where an employee was killed in a trench collapse accident, his estate could not maintain an intentional tort action against the employer where the evidence indicated the employer ceased all work on the trench when the employer's supervisors became aware of...
The Supreme Court of Texas, providing a clear and exhaustive discussion of the state's special utilization of the so-called "substantially certain" standard to be utilized in intentional tort actions filed by employees against their employers, held...
A trial court was correct in finding that a plaintiff-employee had failed to establish an issue of fact in his intentional tort civil action filed against the employer following a serious injury in which the worker's leg was severed above his knee by a mechanical...
Construing New Jersey’s “substantially certain” rule, as applied to intentional tort claims filed against employers and co-employees, a state appellate court held that a former employee of a pharmaceutical company could not move forward against...
The Supreme Court of Vermont again refused to adopt the “substantial certainty” rule for intentional tort cases filed by an injured employee against an employer. Citing its earlier decision in Kittell v. Vermont Weatherboard, Inc. , 138 Vt. 439, 417 A.2d 926 (1980...
Construing Oklahoma law, a federal district court dismissed a civil action filed by a Marriott International employee against Marriott on the basis that the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts to plausibly show that his injury was the result of a willful...
In a case with somewhat bizarre facts, an Ohio appellate court ruled a state trial court appropriately found that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the defendant, who served along with plaintiff on a county SWAT team, knew that it was substantially...
A teacher, who was six-weeks pregnant at the time of a classroom incident that resulted in her injury, may not maintain a tort action against the school board; her allegations failed to raise an issue of intentional tort and her civil action was, therefore, barred...
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that there were material issues of fact as to whether the decedent’s employer knew that injury or death was substantially certain to result from the task decedent and his coworkers were directed to complete and the conditions...
While the action of the employer in utilizing undersized “outriggers” to extend a work platform could be characterized as reckless, the employer was nevertheless entitled to summary judgment in an intentional tort action filed against it by an injured...
Washington state courts may not use the “substantially certain” test to determine whether an employer’s actions against an injured worker were intentional, again held the Supreme Court of Washington in a split decision. Accordingly, a widow’s...
Attention Lexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to lexis.com. Bracketed citations link to Lexis Advance . During a conversation years ago with my mentor and friend, Arthur Larson, I asked him if there were special challenges in teaching workers’ compensation...
Larson's Spotlight on Statutory Interpretation, Credit for Pension Benefits, Intentional Tort, and Substantially Certain Rule. Larson's surveys the latest case developments that you need to know about. Thomas A. Robinson, the staff writer for Larson's...
Larson's Spotlight on Contribution, Firefighter's Rule, Safety Device, and Credit. Larson's surveys the latest case developments that you need to know about. Thomas A. Robinson, the staff writer for Larson's Workers' Compensation Law , has compiled...