 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
PEAY v. U.S. SILICA COMPANY9/20/1993
tion laws were intended by the Legislature to relieve workers of the uncertainties of a trial for damages by providing sure, swift recovery for workplace injuries regardless of fault. Cokely v. Robert Lee, Inc., 197 S.C. 157, 14 S.E.2d 889 (1941). To give effect to this legislative intent, workers' compensation statutes are construed liberally in favor of coverage. Mauldin v. Dyna-Color/Jack Rabbit, 308 S.C. 18, 416 S.E.2d 639 (1992). It follows that any exception to workers' compensation coverage must be narrowly construed. Giving the intentional injury exception to section 42-1-540 its most narrow construction, we find that only those injuries inflicted by an employer who acts with a deliberate or specific intent to injure are exempted from the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation coverage. Accord 2A Larson's, ยง 68.13. Consequently, we decline to follow North Carolina's adoption of the substantial certainty standard articulated in Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991).
Certified question answered.
CHANDLER, FINNEY, MOORE, JJ., and RANDALL T. BELL, Acting Associate Justice, concur.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|