Published on:

Court Addresses Exclusive Remedy Provision in Texas Workplace Accident Lawsuit

collection-of-construction-safety-helmet-38070-300x197Recently, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a decision in a lawsuit stemming from injuries an employee suffered at his workplace. The case arose when a general contractor subcontracted with the defendant to drill a foundation for a commercial construction project. The plaintiff was working as a lead superintendent for the project. On the day of the incident, the subcontractor’s crew began working on a new piling without sufficient grout, contrary to the company’s policy. The defendant’s foreman told the crane operator to rock the auger back and forth to free it from the solidifying grout. After several minutes the foreman told the operator to stop, as it posed a danger. However, the subcontractor’s superintendent overrode the foreman’s instructions and told him to continue. Despite concern that the situation was becoming increasingly dangerous, the subcontractor demanded that the operator continue. As a result, some of the crane’s rollers came off and crushed the plaintiff’s legs, ultimately requiring amputation of his legs.

The plaintiff received workers’ compensation and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the subcontractor for negligence and gross negligence, arguing that the subcontractor waived its exclusive remedy defense. Later the plaintiff amended his complaint, contending that the subcontractor intentionally injured the plaintiff.

In Texas, the Workers’ Compensation Act, (the Act) is the exclusive remedy for eligible employees who seek compensation for work-related injuries. This provision provides medical and disability benefits without considering the fault of either the employer or employee. The Act does not allow lawsuits for an employer’s grossly negligent behavior unless the conduct results in a fatal injury. However, an exception to the bar on lawsuits exists when an employer commits an intentional tort. In order to satisfy the exception, the plaintiff must establish that the employer “believed that its actions are substantially certain to result” in a specific injury to a specific employee, not “merely highly likely to increase the overall risks to employees in the workplace.”

In this case, the plaintiff did not challenge the fact that no evidence suggests that the subcontractor knew its superintendent would injure the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff relied on the theory of transferred intent. Here, the court found that transferred intent may be applicable in some cases; however, there was not sufficient evidence of it in this case. The court reasoned that although evidence suggested that an injury could certainly result, there was no evidence that the subcontractor or superintendent knew that a particular employee would suffer injuries. The court agreed that the superintendent was grossly negligent; however, the Act’s waiver does not apply because the plaintiff did not die. Ultimately, the court found in the defendant’s favor because the plaintiff did not prove that the employer believed its action was “substantially certain” to injure him specifically.

Have You Suffered Injuries at Your Texas Workplace?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died as a result of your employer’s negligence, you should contact the experienced personal injury attorneys at Carabin Shaw. The attorneys at our law firm have over 25 years of experience handling complex lawsuits on behalf of Texas work injury victims. We handle lawsuits stemming from vehicle accidents, premises liability, product liability, workplace injuries, and medical malpractice. We have recovered significant amounts of compensation on behalf of our clients through our dedicated and effective representation. Contact our law firm at 800-862-1260 to schedule a free initial consultation with an attorney at our office.

Contact Information