 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Phillips v. Alpharma4/27/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
The appellant is the estate of an employee who was killed in an explosion while employed by appellee Alpharma Animal Health Co., Inc. (Alpharma Animal). Alpharma Animal is an Arkansas corporation. Its parent company, Alpharma, Inc. (Alpharma NJ), is a New Jersey corporation. Appellant brought an action in tort against Alpharma Animal, Alpharma NJ, and several John Doe defendants for damages arising from the accident that killed appellant's decedent. The circuit court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in ruling that it failed to allege facts stating an intentional tort so as to avoid the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law; in ruling that the application of the exclusive remedy provision to Alpharma NJ was a question for the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission; and in ruling that appellant failed to make allegations of wrongdoing against these defendants that were sufficiently specific to withstand a motion to dismiss. We hold that the trial court's rulings were correct, and we affirm.
We first address appellant's argument that the trial court erred in ruling that it failed to allege facts stating an intentional tort so as to avoid the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law. The Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment unless the injuries resulted from an intentional tort by the employer. To avoid the exclusive remedy provision, the complaint must be based upon allegations of an intentional or deliberate act by the employer with a desire to bring about the consequences of the act. Miller v. Ensco, Inc., 286 Ark. 458, 692 S.W.2d 615 (1985).
The record indicates that appellant's decedent was killed when a spark from malfunctioning equipment caused an organic chemical contained in the product manufactured by Alpharma Animal to explode. Appellant argues that, because it alleged that Alpharma Animal was cited and penalized for environmental violations posing a danger to human health shortly before the decedent's death, and that Alpharma Animal nevertheless "intentionally exposed" decedent to the danger, the complaint alleged an intentional tort sufficient to avoid the exclusive remedy provision. We disagree. In Angle v. Alexander, 328 Ark. 714, 945 S.W.2d 933 (1997), the Arkansas Supreme Court said:
This court in Miller held that these activities alleged by the employer, even when alleged to be flagrant, concealed, and deliberate, do not constitute an intentional tort for purposes of escaping the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. 286 Ark. at 461-62; see also Griffin v. George's, Inc., 267 Ark. 91, 589 S.W.2d 24 (1979), and Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., 217 Ark. 350, 230 S.W.2d 28 (1950). The Miller court held that, before an employee is free to bring a tort action for damages against an employer, the facts must show the employer had a "desire" to bring about the consequences of the acts or that the acts were premeditated with the specific intent to injure the employee. 286 Ark. at 461. The court further observed that intentional torts involve consequences which the actor believes are substantially certain to follow his actions. See also Prosser, Torts, (4th ed.) ยง 8. An example of the type of activity that would fall outside the exclusivity provision would be in the nature of an intentional act by an employer who assaults his employee. See Heskett, 217 Ark. 350, 230 S.W.2d 28. To further illustrate the type of conduct that has been determined to fall within the Workers' Compensation Act, the Miller
Page 1 2 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|