CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiff, Gorman Donald King, was severely injured by a falling rock at the defendant's strip mining operation. He filed a common law action against his employer, arguing the incident was an intentional tort, thus circumventing the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The employer's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court, which ruled that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, emphasizing that allegations of gross or criminal negligence, or even acts equivalent to a deliberate attempt to produce such injury, do not equate to the actual intent to injure required to bypass the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity.
King v. Ross Coal Co., Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The plaintiff, Gorman Donald King, was severely injured by a falling rock at the defendant's strip mining operation. He filed a common law action against his employer, arguing the incident was an intentional tort, thus circumventing the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The employer's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court, which ruled that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, emphasizing that allegations of gross or criminal negligence, or even acts "equivalent to a deliberate attempt to produce such injury," do not equate to the actual intent to injure required to bypass the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.