What Do You Think?
Employees injured at work normally cannot sue a company for negligence and obtain money damages. The “exclusive remedy rule” limits them to workers’ compensation benefits. But there is an exception if the employer intentionally injured them. While the test varies slightly among states, an Oregon case involving a natural foods snack manufacturer shows what it might take to establish intent.
The claimant in that case was fixing a jelly pump at the company’s manufacturing facility when the machine’s shaft unexpectedly drove down onto his thumb, amputating it.
He sued the manufacturer. But he also sued his employer for negligence. In response, the employer asked the court to dismiss the case based on the exclusive remedy rule. To get around that rule, the claimant pointed to the following as evidence that the employer meant to injure him:
- The company knew that employees did not know how to safely use and repair the jelly pump, in part because he informed his supervisors of equipment safety issues multiple times.
- The company had strict production quotas that pressured employees to perform tasks for which they were not qualified. These quotas deterred employees from reporting safety concerns, near misses, or injuries.
- The company did not conduct meaningful safety meetings but, instead, held production meetings, where injuries and near misses were discussed in terms of reduced output.
To show intent to injure, the court said, a claimant must prove that his injury resulted from his employer’s deliberate intention to produce that injury.
Did the claimant meet the intentional injury exception?
A. Yes. He claimed the company was incredibly careless when it came to safety and that the pressure the company put on employees exacerbated the safety risks.
B. No. While the employee argued that the company wasn’t adequately focused on safety, he didn’t show that the company effectively wanted him to lose his thumb.
If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Sahaeo v. Bridgetown Natural Foods, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-1336-SI (D. Or. 03/23/26), which threw out the case.
To see how the exclusive remedy rules play out in your state, cruise over to Simply Research.
It was not enough to show that the employer was careless, or negligent. Even extreme negligence isn’t sufficient to show intent.
Nevertheless, the claimant might have succeeded by establishing that the injury was certain to occur and that the employer knew of that certainty. Essentially, the claimant had to prove that the employer wished to injure him. Another way of explaining it is that the company would have had to essentially use the pump as if it were an axe or a club it wanted to use to hurt the claimant.
The claimant’s arguments about production quotas, badly executed safety meetings, insufficient training, lack of oversight, and the company’s knowledge of safety deficiencies might show it was grossly negligent. “But nothing in [claimant’s lawsuit] reasonabl[y] suggests that Bridgetown wielded the allegedly defective pump “’as [it] would have used an axe or a club,’to intentionally cause injury, let alone to amputate [the claimant’s] thumb,” the court said.
Further, this was a case where the claimant used the pump for years without it malfunctioning. His general complaints about the company’s equipment were not specific enough to show the injury was certain to occur.
The court dismissed the case.
