Tag Archives: substantial certainty

Vermont High Court Again Refuses to Utilize “Substantial Certainty” Exception for Intentional Injury Cases

Reiterating its decision in Kittell v. Vermont Weatherboard, Inc., 138 Vt. 439, 417 A.2d 926 (1980) (per curiam), in which the Supreme Court of Vermont held that nothing short of a specific intent to injure falls outside the scope of … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vermont High Court Again Refuses to Utilize “Substantial Certainty” Exception for Intentional Injury Cases

Washington Appellate Court Again Says “Tasered Trooper’s” Tort Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense

Did Intermediate Appellate Court Abide by Supreme Court’s Remand Instructions? In a case that has ricocheted from a Washington state trial court to an intermediate appellate court and from that appellate court to the Supreme Court of Washington and back again, the … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Washington Appellate Court Again Says “Tasered Trooper’s” Tort Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense

US: Establishing “Substantial Certainty” in Intentional Tort Cases is Difficult

Construing La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1032, which generally provides that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy of an employee injured within the course and scope of the employment unless the act causing the injury was an intentional act, and observing … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on US: Establishing “Substantial Certainty” in Intentional Tort Cases is Difficult

New Jersey: OSHA Violation is Insufficient to Show Necessary Level of “Intent” to Support Tort Claim Against Employer

As noted in my June 6, 2012 discussion of Estes v. Airco Serv., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72134 (N.D. Okla., May 24, 2012), below, an important exception to the exclusive remedy rule relates to intentional injury inflicted by the … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on New Jersey: OSHA Violation is Insufficient to Show Necessary Level of “Intent” to Support Tort Claim Against Employer

US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers

An important exception to the exclusive remedy rule relates to intentional injury inflicted by the employer on an employee. Several legal theories have been advanced to support the exception. The best is that the employer will not be heard to … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers