Post-Mortem Shows Marijuana, Fentanyl, and Alcohol in Deceased Employee’s System In what appears to be the first case of its kind—an action filed against an employer for its allegedly inadequate...
Ohio Widow’s Action Against Ford for Failure to Implement Substance Abuse Policy is Barred by Exclusivity Defense Ohio Widow’s Action Against Ford for Failure to Implement Substance Abuse Policy is Barred by Exclusivity DefenseReiterating 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...
Vermont High Court Again Refuses to Utilize “Substantial Certainty” Exception for Intentional Injury Cases Vermont High Court Again Refuses to Utilize “Substantial Certainty” Exception for Intentional Injury CasesA divided Supreme Court of Washington, noting that in Birklid v. Boeing Co., 127 Wn.2d 853, 904 P.2d 278 (1995) [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.04[3][c]], it had earlier...
Divided Washington Court Again Refuses to Adopt Substantially Certain Test Divided Washington Court Again Refuses to Adopt Substantially Certain TestConstruing 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...
US: Establishing “Substantial Certainty” in Intentional Tort Cases is Difficult US: Establishing “Substantial Certainty” in Intentional Tort Cases is DifficultThe Supreme Court of Nebraska recently affirmed a decision of a county district court that had dismissed a tort action filed against the defendant-employer by the estate of an employee...
Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy DefenseOn Tuesday, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed a trial court’s order granting various defendants’ motions for summary judgment on exclusivity grounds in a wrongful death action filed...
North Carolina: Intentional Tort Action Against Wal-Mart Related to Death of Wal-Mart “Greeter” Barred by Exclusivity North Carolina: Intentional Tort Action Against Wal-Mart Related to Death of Wal-Mart “Greeter” Barred by ExclusivityIn a workers’ compensation immunity case, the Court of Appeal of Florida (Fourth District) yesterday reversed a $2.7 million jury verdict and final judgment in favor of an employee who...
Florida: Court Reverses Injured Worker’s $2.7 Million Verdict Against Employer: Injury Was Not “Virtually Certain” Florida: Court Reverses Injured Worker’s $2.7 Million Verdict Against Employer: Injury Was Not “Virtually Certain”In what will likely be one of the last cases to be heard under Oklahoma’s court-crafted version of the “substantially certain” rule [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.04[2][e]] that...
Oklahoma: Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals in “Substantially Certain” Case Oklahoma: Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals in “Substantially Certain” CaseAs 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...
New Jersey: OSHA Violation is Insufficient to Show Necessary Level of “Intent” to Support Tort Claim Against Employer New Jersey: OSHA Violation is Insufficient to Show Necessary Level of “Intent” to Support Tort Claim Against EmployerAn 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...
US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers