When Are an Employer’s Actions Intentional?

In a case decided last week, the Utah Supreme Court held that a woman who had been injured on the job could not only recover under the Workers’ Compensation Act for her employer’s negligent acts but also in state court for injuries that were intentionally caused by her employer. The case, Helf v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., clarifies the dinstinction between negligent acts—for which an employee is limited to Workers’ Compensation Act remedies—and intentional acts—for which an employee may bring additional claims in state court.

The employee in this case was injured when her supervisors directed her to neutralize toxic sludge in an open air pit after they knew that doing the same thing earlier in the day had created a large purple cloud that set off chemical alarms and sent several people home with illnesses. The employee, not knowing of the earlier problem, did as directed. The purple cloud formed, she vomited and passed out and later developed complex partial seizures, headaches, eye irritation, a twitching eyelid, disorientation, lethargy and weakness of extremities.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled that an act is intentional if an “injury resulted from an act that the actor knew or expected would cause injury. This standard does not require a motive to injure, but it cannot be satisfied by merely demonstrating that there was a high probability of injury.” Accordingly, it ruled that the employer may have acted intentionally and the employee could maintain her claim in state court despite the fact that she had also recovered under the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act.