What Do You Think?
One way employees can get around the exclusive remedy provision and sue an employer in tort for money damages is by showing the employer purposely injured them. But is it enough to prove the employer told them to go work in an unsafe area, where serious accidents had already occurred multiple times? A Mississippi case involving two steel workers working amongst stacks of massive pipes addresses that question.
The employees were working in the “yard,” among stacks of four-ton steel pipes. The pipes shifted, crushing and killing one of them and seriously injuring the other.
The surviving employee and the estate of the deceased one sued the company in tort, arguing that it knowingly subjected them to a work environment that wasn’t safe. They pointed to prior OSHA investigations and accidents involving the stability of the pipe stack, some of which resulted in serious injury. In one incident, an employee was pinned between two pipes, resulting in a broken pelvis.
The company asked the court to throw out the case, citing the exclusive remedy rule. Under that rule, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for injured workers. Employees can still sue in tort, however, if they show that the employer intentionally injured them. To do that, they have to show that the employer acted:
- With an actual intent to injure the employee;
- With full knowledge that the employee would be injured; and
- With the purpose of the action being to cause injury to the employee.
Did the plaintiffs show the employer intentionally hurt them?
A. Yes. Based on the prior accidents, the employer knew that an injury was substantially certain to occur.
B. No. The yard was dangerous, but it wasn’t a certainty that the employees would be injured there.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Fredericks v. GH Cranes & Components USA, Inc., No. 1:25cv222-LG-BWR (S.D. Miss. 03/16/26), which dismissed the case.
Got exclusive remedy questions? Get Simply Research.
The court stated that it’s not enough for an employee to prove the company was negligent or reckless. It’s also not enough to show the employer knowingly ordered the worker to perform a dangerous job.
Here, the plaintiffs pointed to several prior events when employees were seriously injured. They contended that the prior incidents showed the company was aware of the unsafe practices involving the stability of pipe stacks. But even if the employer was substantially certain the two workers would be injured, that’s not enough in Mississippi to show intent. Instead, the plaintiffs had to show the employer had a deliberate intent and design to injure them.
Here, it wasn’t certain that the employees would be injured. “While the yard may be dangerous, Jindal’s employees are capable of working there without suffering injury,” the court said.
Because the plaintiffs didn’t establish intent, the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision.
