McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Weaver, Stern & Thomas, P.A.

Workers' Compensation

EAC USA, Inc. et al. v. Kawa and Roberts Quality Printing

805 So.2d 1, 26 FLW D1706

Employee of employer filed civil cause of action against employer and manufacturer/designer of equipment where claimant was injured. The manufacturer of the equipment filed a claim for indemnification against the employer alleging intentional misconduct. The claimant's claim against the employer also alleged intentional misconduct on the part of the employer in removing a safety feature on the machine that allegedly caused the injury to the claimant. Employers are generally afforded immunity from common law negligence suits filed by employees. An exception to this immunity however is for intentional torts. Employees and third parties alike may assert an intentional tort claim against an employer otherwise immune from common law claims of negligence. To prove the existence of an intentional tort, an employee or third party must allege that the employer either exhibited a deliberate intent to injure or engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury or death. The Supreme Court in reversing several previous decisions, stated in the case of Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683, that although "substantial certainty" requires a showing greater than gross negligence, the appropriate standard is "substantial certainty" and not the heightened "virtual certainty" standard used or applied by some district courts. The court in the case of Turner, supra, rejected the notion that substantial certainty of injury required a showing that the employer had actual knowledge that its conduct would cause the employee's injury. There is no need for the injured worker to prove actual intent on behalf of the employer. Instead, an employee need only show that a reasonable person would understand that the employer's conduct was substantially certain to result in injury to the employee. The court ruled in this case that the manufacturer/designer of the equipment in question satisfied its burden of attempting to plead a cause of action for contribution against the employer alleging intentional conduct that was substantially certain to result in injury. The court also determined that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the manufacturer/designer's motion for leave to amend its crossclaim to assert a contribution claim against the employer. Amendments to pleadings should be readily given by the court unless there is a showing that the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend had been abused, or an amendment would be futile. None of these obstacles to amendment were present in this case.

Cases

Workers' Compensation

EAC USA, Inc. et al. v. Kawa and Roberts Quality Printing