Deceased Employee’s Heirs May Not Maintain Tort Action Against Mississippi Employer Following Training Exercise Shooting
Evidence that a highly trained firearms instructor failed to observe known safety rules, resulting in the fatal shooting of a co-employee in a training exercise, while tragic, was not enough to show the shooting was intentional, held the Supreme Court of Mississippi [In the Estate of Gorman v. State, 2020 Miss. LEXIS 506 (Dec. 17, 2020)]. Accordingly, it was not error for a state trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of the State of Mississippi, as employer, on exclusive remedy grounds in a tort action filed against it by the deceased employee’s heirs. The shooting was accidental, not intentional.
Background
Sharp and Gorman were employees of the Mississippi Gaming Commission. For twenty years, Sharp had been a highly trained certified firearms instructor. The Commission determined that its employees needed to be better equipped at handling threats, so training courses were increased and became mandatory for employees. During one such training session, Sharp led training as usual. Director Gorman and three special agents assisted. During a simulated attack series, in which Gorman was the “aggressor,” Sharp pulled his service weapon from his holster and fired one lethal shot into Gorman’s chest. Had all safety precautions been followed, the firearm would not have been loaded.
The Commission Shooting Review Board concluded that the incident was an accidental discharge of an agency weapon. It did conclude, however, that the failure to follow safety precautions and procedures was the most significant contributing factor in the fatal incident. The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation reviewed the incident and concurred.
After the incident, Gorman’s heirs began receiving automatic workers’ compensation payments. Each heir brought independent actions against the Commission that were later consolidated. Once consolidated, the Commission filed a joint motion for summary judgment in August 2017, stating the exclusivity of Mississippi Workers’ Compensation law barred further remedy. Gorman’s heirs opposed the motion, but the circuit court later granted summary judgment for the Commission.
No Untoward Event
The Court noted that the relevant statute, Miss. Code § 71-3-9 (Rev. 2011), provided that the employer’s liability to pay workers’ compensation benefits was exclusive and that to invoke its exclusivity as a remedy under the Act, the injury suffered must be “accidental.” The Court stressed that under the statute, an accidental injury or accidental death occurs from an untoward event or events [Opinion, p. 10, emphasis by the Court].
No Intent to Injure
The Court continued that throughout the years, the Court had reiterated that if the facts alleged or proven point to negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness, despite an allegation of actual intent, the Court will find that workers’ compensation is the sole avenue for relief for the aggrieved party. The Court added that while the incident was tragic and wholly unintended, there was nothing in the record to demonstrate that Sharp possessed an actual intent to injure Gorman. The fact that Sharp was a firearms expert and ignored safety rules was insufficient to show actual intent to injure. Summary judgment was appropriate in favor of the employer.