Case File
When a Walmart worker got hit by a truck while jogging off the clock in the parking lot, was it a work-related injury and did his acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits matter? Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.
Case
Duke v. Walmart, Inc., No. SC-2026-0074 (Ala. 03/20/26)
What Happened?
Allegedly, an “off duty” Walmart worker was jogging in the parking lot of the Walmart distribution center when he was struck by a tractor-trailer truck driven by a coworker.
The worker brought a tort action against Walmart and the coworker, and the trial court granted summary judgment to Walmart and the coworker on the basis of Alabama’s exclusive remedy bar. The trial court noted that it was undisputed that the worker had accepted workers’ compensation and medical benefits from Walmart, that he had accepted those benefits while represented by counsel, and that he had taken no action to reserve any right to pursue any other remedy before accepting those benefits. Thus, the trial court held that the worker’s acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits while represented by counsel estopped him from pursuing other remedies against Walmart.
The trial court also held that the worker couldn’t sue the coworker because there was no evidence of willful conduct.
The worker appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
In Alabama, employees do not have a right to “any other method, form, or amount of compensation or damages for an injury or death occasioned by an accident or occupational disease proximately resulting from and while engaged in the actual performance of the duties of his or her employment and from a cause originating in such employment or determination thereof.”
As noted in Davis v. M.C. Dixon Lumber Co., 551 So. 2d 305 (1989), the Alabama Supreme Court has consistently held that “the acceptance of [workers’] compensation payments … constitutes an election that estops the employee from resorting to any other remedy.”
What the Alabama Supreme Court Said
According to the court, the worker didn’t meet his burden of demonstrating by substantial evidence that his tort claims were not barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the act, and so summary judgment was proper.
The worker argued that the Workers’ Compensation Act didn’t apply because his injuries were not job-related, owing to his off-duty status. However, this argument didn’t fly with the court due to the worker’s acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits and because, under Brown v. Hixon, 686 So. 2d 1220 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), when a party with knowledge of facts makes an election between inconsistent theories of recovery, the election is binding on him.
Regarding the worker’s action against his coworker, the court held that the worker did not present evidence of willful conduct on the coworker’s part other than alleging that the coworker was under the influence of illegal drugs.
The court explained that the worker “was required to present substantial evidence demonstrating that [the coworker] had acted with an intent or design to injure him,” and because he presented no such evidence, summary judgment was proper on the claim.
Verdict: The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Takeaway
Accepting workers’ compensation benefits in Alabama will estop a worker from claiming his injuries weren’t work-related in a negligence action.
