Danny Brock v. Peter Dunne

Summary

The Court held that the defendant ad litem was immune from Brock’s workplace-injury claim because Brock did not present evidence that Edwards purposefully and dangerously caused or increased the risk of injury within the statutory exception to co-employee immunity. The Court also held that Brock failed to make a submissible common-law negligence case because Edwards’s conduct fell within the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace. The judgment for Brock was reversed, and judgment was entered for Dunne.