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...
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 CasesThe Missouri Court of Appeals recently affirmed a decision of that state’s Labor and Industrial Relations Commission that had denied workers’ compensation benefits to a tire shop employee who sustained...
Missouri Court Stresses Importance of Injury “by Accident” in Recent Horseplay Case Missouri Court Stresses Importance of Injury “by Accident” in Recent Horseplay CaseDid 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...
Washington Appellate Court Again Says “Tasered Trooper’s” Tort Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense Washington Appellate Court Again Says “Tasered Trooper’s” Tort Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy DefenseA 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 TestOn 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 ExclusivityAs 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 Employer