Tag: substantially certain

Jun 17, 2019

NJ Diabetic Teacher’s Failure to Accommodate Claim Not Barred by Exclusivity

In a decision discussing several employment-related law issues, a New Jersey appellate court held, in relevant part, that a bodily injury claim arising from an employer’s failure to accommodate allegation...

NJ Diabetic Teacher’s Failure to Accommodate Claim Not Barred by Exclusivity NJ Diabetic Teacher’s Failure to Accommodate Claim Not Barred by Exclusivity
Mar 19, 2019

Ohio Widow’s Action Against Ford for Failure to Implement Substance Abuse Policy is Barred by Exclusivity Defense

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 Defense
Oct 16, 2018

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...

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 Cases
Sep 22, 2014

Divided Washington Court Again Refuses to Adopt Substantially Certain Test

A 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 Test
Jan 17, 2014

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...

US: Establishing “Substantial Certainty” in Intentional Tort Cases is Difficult US: Establishing “Substantial Certainty” in Intentional Tort Cases is Difficult
Jun 4, 2013

Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense

The 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 Defense
Feb 8, 2013

North Carolina: Intentional Tort Action Against Wal-Mart Related to Death of Wal-Mart “Greeter” Barred by Exclusivity

On 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 Exclusivity
Jan 24, 2013

Florida: Court Reverses Injured Worker’s $2.7 Million Verdict Against Employer: Injury Was Not “Virtually Certain”

In 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”
Nov 16, 2012

Oklahoma: Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals in “Substantially Certain” Case

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” Case
Jul 4, 2012

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...

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
Jun 6, 2012

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...

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