In prior articles, I discussed the benefit of workers compensation immunity for contractors. Arguing around workers compensation immunity under the “intentional tort exception” is really hard – borderline impossible, in my opinion. Nevertheless, injured workers still make an attempt to sue a contractor under the intentional tort exception to workers compensation immunity. Most fail based on the seemingly impossible standard the injured worker must prove to establish the intentional tort exception. A less onerous standard (although certainly onerous), as a recent case suggests, appears to be an injured worker suing a co-employee for the injury.
Florida Statute s. 440.11 discusses the intentional tort exception to workers compensation immunity. Workers compensation shall be the exclusive remedy to an injured worker UNLESS the injured worker can establish a claim against the contractor or fellow-employee under the intentional tort exception as statutorily set forth below:
440.11 Exclusiveness of liability. —
(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability . . . except as follows:
. . . .
(b) When an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee. For purposes of this paragraph, an employer’s actions shall be deemed to constitute an intentional tort and not an accident only when the employee proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that:
1. The employer deliberately intended to injure the employee; or
2. The employer engaged in conduct that the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work.
The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when the employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this statute. Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or . . . with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death . . . .
In Ramsey v. Dewitt Excavating, Inc., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1366a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), an employee was cleaning a cement-mixing pugmill with a fellow employee. An accident happened while the employee was inside the mixing box causing his death. While he was inside, his fellow-employee turned on the mixing box causing his death. The employee’s estate sued both the employer and the fellow-employee for the wrongful death and argued under the intentional tort exception to get around workers compensation immunity.
The trial court granted summary judgment on the issue of workers compensation immunity finding that the immunity barred the estate’s claims against the employer and the fellow-employee.
Intentional Tort Exception as to Employer
The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment as to the employer because the employee could NOT prove the virtually impossible burden in establishing the applicability of the intentional tort exception.
Three elements must be proved to establish the intentional tort exception to worker’s compensation immunity, and the failure to prove any one of the elements will prevent the exception from applying. The elements are:
1) employer knowledge of a known danger . . . based upon prior similar accidents or explicit warnings specifically identifying the danger that was virtually certain to cause injury or death to the employee;
2) the employee was not aware of the danger . . . because it was not apparent; and
3) deliberate concealment or misrepresentation by the employer . . . preventing employee from exercising informed judgment as to whether to perform the work.
Ramsey, supra (internal citation omitted).
There was no evidence to suggest that the employee was not aware of the danger involved in cleaning the inside of the cement mixing box and that he had to be aware based on working on the machine in the past, which was inherently dangerous in of itself. This alone supported the application of the workers compensation immunity and there likely would have been a lot more facts (or facts the employee’s estate would not be able to prove) supporting the immunity.
Intentional Tort Exception as to Fellow-Employee
The appellate court, however, reversed the summary judgment as to the fellow-employee finding that a jury could find that the fellow-employee acted with gross negligence causing the death of the employee.
In order to establish that Gubbins [fellow-employee] acted with gross negligence when he turned on the pug mill while Ramsey [employee] was still inside, the parents [representatives of estate] were required to present evidence as to each of the following three elements:
1) circumstances constituting an imminent or clear and present danger amounting to a more than normal or usual peril [;]
2) knowledge or awareness of the imminent danger on the part of . . . [Gubbins;] and
3) an act or omission [on the part of Gubbins] that evinces a conscious disregard of the consequences.
The estate had evidence that the fellow-employee directed the decedent-employee inside the cement mixing box and then activated the box without utilizing any safety system or checking to see if the decedent-employee was still inside. Based on this evidence, a jury could conclude that the fellow-employee was grossly negligent in activating the mixing box.
Please contact David Adelstein at firstname.lastname@example.org or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.