 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Iddings v. Mee-Lee6/20/1996
rs to purchase workers' compensation insurance. In my view, Iddings' contention is meritless. See note 11, supra. Furthermore, Iddings as well as the majority fail to consider the social costs of allowing the exclusive remedy provision to be easily circumvented by simply claiming that a supervising employee allowed an employee to work in an unsafe environment. In other words, employers in our state will now have to pay double, i.e., (1) workers' compensation premiums and (2) liability insurance for their supervisors and employees, in exchange for their "immunity."
If we follow the majority's position, almost any claim for an on-the-job injury may be framed as a claim under HRS ยง 386-8 against a supervising employee for "wantonly" allowing the employee to work in an unsafe environment, e.g., in this case, "excessive furniture" within the workplace. If it is not necessary to prove that the alleged wilful and wanton misconduct included an actual intent to cause injury , any time an employee is injured on work premises, the exclusive remedy provision can be easily circumvented.
It would seem ironic that a "reckless" 1937 bankruptcy ruling could have drastic consequences for Hawai'i. I note the concerns of the Alabama Legislature. Wyoming, at least its state legislature, also learned the bitter and costly lesson that a fault standard cannot co-exist within a no-fault system:
The court's decision also undermines the purpose of Workers' Compensation. Worker[s'] Compensation statutes were enacted not only to benefit employees, but also to insure employers against large judgments that might be awarded if employees were allowed to sue. However, with the elimination of co-employee immunity, employers are once again facing the possibility of paying out large sums of money to protect their workers. Many employees will now demand their employers to provide them with liability insurance as a condition of employment. The employer will be paying double for the immunity it supposedly received from worker[s'] compensation statutes. In addition, employers may be required to indemnify or defend their negligent employees. These increased demands will greatly increase costs to Wyoming employers. If employers refuse these demands, then the cost to Wyoming employees will be severe. Every time an employee makes a mistake on the job , he will be vulnerable to a costly lawsuit.
The court's decision will also have serious, non-legal, ramifications. Currently, only ten states, including Wyoming, permit co-employees to sue one another. When a business is deciding whether or not to locate in Wyoming, co-employee liability will be one of the factors taken into consideration. The added cost of insurance for its employees will encourage businesses to look at surrounding states such as Colorado, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho and Montana which provided immunity for businesses and their employees. Employer could achieve substantial savings by relocating in a state that provides them and their employees more protection from lawsuits. It could have a disastrous impact on Wyoming's already fragile economy if employers begin relocating.
While Justice Urbigkit sought to "open the courthouse doors" to injured employees, the court has effectively opened a floodgate of litigation that will end up costing employers, employees, and the judicial system a lot of time and money. This, in turn, injures everyone through crowded court dockets, higher costs to employers, and higher prices for the consumer.
Materi, supra, at 287-88 (brackets added).
For these reasons, I respectfully Dissent and would affirm the circuit court's order granting Dr. Mee-Lee's motion for summa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|