Worker's Compensation does not limit recovery for inentional injuries

If you are injured on the job due to negligence, then only the Worker's Compensation Law will provide you with a way to get compensation. According to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-108, "the Workers' Compensation Law provides employees with their exclusive remedy against employers for work-related injuries." Blair v. Allied Maint. Corp., 756 S.W.2d 267, 270 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988).

But, what if you are injured because of someone else's intentional act. In other words, what if you are punched or grabbed or shaken by a fellow employee or a supervisor or manager? Well, your employer is still protected from a lawsuit, unless your employer is the one who intentionally harmed you. Employees are precluded from suing employers at common law for their injuries unless the employee can show that the employer intentionally injured the employee. Blair, 756 S.W.2d at 270. "A co-employee's intentional tort will not give rise to a cause of action against the employer." Blair, 756 S.W.2d at 270.

However, the Workers' Compensation Law does not place the same limitations on a common law claim against a co-employee. Blair, 756 S.W.2d at 270. In Blair, the Court determined that the Workers' Compensation Law does not bar an employee's intentional tort claim against a supervisor. 756 S.W.2d at 270-271. This means that if you are injured as a result of a co-employee's direct actions, if they intended to hurt you or acted in such a way as to bring about the harm, then you may sue the other employee, supervisor or manager.

In a recent case, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant committed the torts of assault, battery, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress during the November 23, 2000, encounter. It is well settled that in Tennessee that assault and battery, if proven, are intentional torts,  Pendleton v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 558, No. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2138240, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. Sept. 1, 2005), therefore, the Plaintiff's claims for assault and battery against the defendant were are not barred as a matter of law under the Workers' Compensation Law. However, negligent torts are barred.

Defendants argued that because the trial court found that Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, the court implicitly determined that the Plaintiff's injuries arose accidentally in the course and scope of employment. This is a tricky argument. According to Defendants, the implicit finding that Plaintiff's injuries arose accidentally precludes individual recovery against Mr. Bidwell since an employee may only maintain a tort action against a co-employee who intentionally injures that employee. Fortunately, non only is that not the law in Tennessee, Tennessee holds exactly the opposite doctrine.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed this issue in Williams v. Smith, 222 Tenn. 284, 435 S.W.2d 808 (Tenn.1968), where a former employee filed a common law action for injuries sustained as a result of an assault by a co-employee. The Court determined that the employee's common law action against the co-employee was not barred under the fiction created by the Workers' Compensation Law that the employee-victim of an intentional assault sustains an "accident" during a co-employee's intentional tort. Williams, 435 S.W.2d at 811. The Court explained:

[W]hat we have to decide is whether or not the fiction, that the employee-victim of an intentional, deliberate assault has sustained an accident because it was unexpected and unintended on his part, can be availed of by an assaulting co-employee to compel his victim to proceed under the Act. And we think the assaulter cannot so compel the victim, because the fiction was created and is allowed to operate solely because this is the fair, right and just [*10] thing to do. It is a conclusion based entirely on the effect on the assaulted employee. So that it would be a travesty on justice, indeed, to make this fiction operate in favor of one whose act has been wilful and malicious and intentionally harmful and is in no conceivable sense an 'accident'.

We hold that while the fiction of accident is available to the assaulted employee to sustain a recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Act, this being just and right, this fiction created for the benefit of the injured employee is not available to the intentional assaulter to require that the injured employee proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, so to do being unfair and unjust.

Williams, 435 S.W.2d at 811. Here's what the Court means.

When the Court says that the "fiction" of an accident was created, the Court is saying that, for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Worker's Compensation Act, it is necessary for the injured employee to assert that an accident happened at work. This is so because the law demands it. But, just because the law demands it, that does not mean that the employee has waived any right because he was harmed by a willful, malicious or intentional act.

What this means to employees injured by the intentional acts of a co-employee, supervisors, managers or even business owners, is that they can accept worker's compensation for their loss of work, medical bills, etc. But, they can also sue the person who injured them on purpose and recover from them because they intentionally harmed the worker. If it were not so, then someone who intentionally assaulted an employee would be unfairly protected. The Court wants people who intentionally inflict harm on others to be accountable.

If you, or someone you know, has been injured at work, call Attorney Bob Vogel at the Vogel Law Firm or call 865-357-1949 for a free consultation.