 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dominguez v. Evergreen Resources7/21/2005
ployees only under the worker's compensation system and is immune from other civil causes of action. I.C. § 72-209(1). This principle "is referred to as the exclusive remedy rule." Robinson, 139 Idaho at 209, 76 P.3d at 953. The exclusive remedy rule, however, is not without exceptions. See I.C. §§ 72-201, and 72-209(1). One such exception arises if the employee's injury results from the "wilful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer . . . ." I.C. § 72-209(3).
The Employer argues an injury is either (1) an accident sustained in the course of employment, or (2) the result of an intentional tort -- but cannot be both. In the Employer's view, only an injury resulting from an "accident" is compensable under worker 's compensation , but an injury resulting from an intentional act is not an accident and therefore is non-compensable. Because Dominguez was injured in the course of his employment and has been receiving worker 's compensation benefits, the Employer maintains it is inconsistent for Dominguez to continue to claim he was the victim of an intentional tort.
Contrary to the Employer's assertions, injury in the course of employment and injury as the result of an intentional act are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of common sense, an employee can be harmed while working, whether that harm is the result of negligence or design. Even if an employer commits an intentional tort against an employee, it does not follow that the tort necessarily arose outside of the employment context, or that the employee was acting outside the course of his employment at the time of injury.
An injury can be "accidental" from the perspective of an employee while at the same time being intentional on the part of the employer. The worker 's compensation law defines an "injury" as "a personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of any employment covered by the worker 's compensation law." I.C. § 72-102(17)(a). In turn, an "accident" is defined as "an unexpected, undesigned, and unlooked for mishap, or untoward event, connected with the industry in which it occurs, and which can be reasonably located as to time when and place where it occurred, causing an injury." I.C. § 72-102(17)(b). From Dominguez's perspective, the injury that befell him was an accident under the statutory definition. In cleaning out the sludge at the bottom of the steel tank, Dominguez did not intend to be overcome by hydrogen cyanide gas. His injury was an untoward event, connected to the industry in which it occurred, which can be reasonably located as to time and place. It is no contradiction for Dominguez's to maintain he suffered an accident covered by worker 's compensation and at the same time argue he was harmed by the Employer's intentional acts.
Moreover, this Court has stated that "the exclusiveness of an injured employee's remedy [under worker 's compensation ] is not absolute. . . . The exemption from liability given to an employer by section 72-209(1) does not apply in any case where injury or death is proximately caused by the willful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer." Selkirk Seed Co. v. State Ins. Fund, 135 Idaho 434, 439, 18 P.3d 956, 961 (2001) (citing to I.C. § 72-209(3)). As a result of this exception, an employee is not required to forgo the filing of a worker 's compensation claim in order to sue his employer for willful or unprovoked physical aggression. Kearney v. Denker, 114 Idaho 755, 757, 760 P.2d 1171, 1173 (1988).
In this case, Dominguez has alleged a willful or unprovoked physical aggression by his employer, and therefore his claim falls into a statutory exception to the exclusive remedy rule.
I.C. § 72-209(3). Conseque
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|