James Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc. Carl Ray Snodgrass v. United States Steel Corp. Mary Kay Dishmon, Admx…

Summary

The court held that the deliberate-intent exception to workers’ compensation immunity is not limited to an employer’s specific intent to injure or kill; it includes intentional torts and wilful, wanton, and reckless misconduct undertaken with knowledge and appreciation of a high degree of physical risk. The court reversed the dismissals and summary judgments in all three consolidated cases because the pleadings and evidentiary materials raised factual issues concerning the employers’ knowledge, conduct, and intent. The court also held that the motions in two cases were converted into summary-judgment motions and that the complaint in the third stated a legally sufficient claim. Neely, dissenting, agreed with the procedural result but argued that the exception should remain substantially narrower, while Miller, concurring, viewed the majority’s rule as consistent with prior law.