NC Court Nixes Third-Party Complaint Filed Against Injured Worker’s Employer

Issue Commentary: After 32 Years, NC Courts Still Struggle with “Substantial Certainty” Test

Intentional Injury Action Against Co-Employees Fails Under Alabama’s Substantially Certain Rule

Applying Alabama’s intentional injury exception to the exclusive remedy rule, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a trial court’s decision granting two co-employee defendants summary judgment in a civil action...

Ohio Employer Not Liable in Tort Following Fatal Trench Collapse

An Ohio appellate court recently affirmed a state trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer that had been sued in tort following the death of an...

NJ Worker's Tort Action Against Supply Company Fails on Exclusivity Grounds

A New Jersey appellate court affirmed a state trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant supply company in a civil action filed against it by...

Texas High Court Shows "Substantially Certain" Rule Differs "Substantially" from State to State

In an opinion that provides perhaps the best discussion of the intentional injury exception to a state’s exclusive remedy rule, the Supreme Court of Texas held that in order for...

CT Worker Fails in Intentional Tort Action Against Employer

A Connecticut appellate court recently held that a state trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of an employer-defendant in an intentional tort claimed filed...

Jury-Rigged “Safety” Mechanism Subjects NJ Employer to Substantially Certain Tort Claim

Allegations that a New Jersey company maintained an unwritten policy of avoiding the use of a lock-out, tag-out (“LOTO”) safety feature on a machine because doing so would require a...

Idaho High Court Does “a 180”: Employees May Sue Employers for Reckless Conduct

Reversing itself (in relevant part), a divided Supreme Court of Idaho cast aside a year-old decision and, after re-argument, adopted what amounts to a reckless standard in so-called “intentional” tort...

Deeply Divided Oklahoma Supreme Court “Opts Out” of Legislature’s Definition of “intentional” Injury

“Substantially Certain” Doctrine Stays, in Spite of Specific Language to the Contrary In a deeply divided decision, with three justices concurring specially with the majority’s opinion, and four justices dissenting,...

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...

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...