Case File
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the exclusive remedy provision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act is an affirmative defense — not a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction. This means that the employer, not the employee suing, has the burden to establish that the exclusive remedy rule bars the lawsuit. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the case.
Case
Crook v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, No. A26A0470 (Ga. App. 06/15/26)
What Happened?
The employee was working as a seasonal “scare actor” for Fright Fest at the Six Flags Over Georgia theme park. While riding in the back of a cargo van driven by a coworker, the van’s door remained open as the van climbed a hill and went around a curve. The employee fell out the door, sustained fatal head injuries, and died.
Her surviving spouse filed a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against Six Flags. The company asked the court to throw out the case. It argued that because the spouse’s sole remedy was workers’ compensation, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the spouse’s negligence lawsuit.
The trial court agreed, stating that it was up to the plaintiff/spouse to demonstrate that the exclusivity rule did not apply in this case. It threw out the case, and the spouse appealed.
Rule of Law
In Georgia, the exclusive remedy rule is an affirmative defense, not a bar to subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, it is the defendant/employer asserting the rule that must prove that the rule applies – in other words, that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. It is not, as Six Flags argued, the burden of the plaintiff/spouse to disprove it.
What the Court Said
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. Georgia trial courts have authority to hear wrongful death and negligence claims, the court said, and thus have subject matter jurisdiction over those cases.
The court acknowledged that if a claim falls within the scope of the WCA, the State Board of Workers’ Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction over claims under the Act. Under these circumstances, trial courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to order the payment of workers’ compensation benefits.
“However, this does not mean that trial courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider whether the exclusivity bar applies in an employee’s tort action,” the court said.
Verdict: The Appeals Court of Georgia reversed the Gwinnett County State Court’s dismissal of the case and remanded the matter for additional proceedings.
Takeaway
In Georgia, an employer cannot use a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to force an injured employee or survivor to show that the exclusive remedy rule does not apply. The rule is an affirmative defense. Thus, the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that defense applies to the case.
