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...
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 DefenseConstruing 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 DifficultAs 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