Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co.
1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 5274, 670 S.W.2d 373 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer commits an intentional tort, falling outside the workers' compensation exclusivity rule, when it intentionally commits an act (such as assault by placing an employee in apprehension of harm) that proximately causes a different and unintended physical injury; the intent to commit the initial tortious act is legally transferred to the resulting harm.
Facts:
- Cathy Bennight was an employee at a Western Auto Supply Company store.
- The store's warehouse area was infested with bats, a fact known to the store manager.
- The manager refused several requests from employees to have the bats removed, despite knowing they posed a risk of rabies.
- Cathy Bennight repeatedly communicated her fear of the bats to the manager.
- The manager, over her protests, repeatedly required her to enter the bat-infested warehouse as part of her job duties.
- On one occasion, Bennight was 'attacked' by bats three times without being bitten.
- The following workday, the manager again required Bennight to enter the warehouse, where she was bitten by a bat.
- As a result of an adverse reaction to anti-rabies treatment for the bite, Cathy Bennight became permanently blind and emotionally disturbed.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathy Bennight asserted and settled a worker’s compensation claim against her employer, Western Auto Supply Company.
- Cathy's husband, Joe Bennight, and minor daughter, Jennifer Bennight, sued Western Auto in district court (a trial court).
- The trial court granted summary judgment against Jennifer Bennight, ruling that she did not have a valid cause of action under Texas law.
- Joe Bennight’s claim for loss of consortium proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found that Western Auto's manager did not intend for Cathy to be bitten, but did intentionally maintain an unsafe workplace and require her to work there against her will, proximately causing her harm.
- The jury awarded Joe Bennight $87,500 in damages.
- The trial court disregarded the jury's damage award and rendered a 'take-nothing' judgment in favor of Western Auto.
- Joe Bennight and Jennifer Bennight appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer commit an intentional tort, thereby forfeiting the protection of the workers' compensation exclusivity rule, by intentionally placing an employee in apprehension of a harmful contact, when that act proximately causes a different, unintended physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Powers, Justice
Yes, an employer commits an intentional tort under these circumstances. When an employer intentionally commits one tortious act, the intent for that act is imputed by law to the unintended but resulting physical harm, removing the injury from the 'accidental' category covered exclusively by workers' compensation. Here, the jury found the manager required Cathy Bennight to work in the warehouse 'against her will' with knowledge of the danger. This constituted an assault, as it intentionally placed her in apprehension of a harmful bodily contact with a bat. The intent to commit this assault legally transfers to the resulting battery (the bat bite) and its consequences, regardless of whether the manager specifically intended for her to be bitten. Therefore, the injury was the result of an intentional tort, and her husband's derivative claim for loss of consortium is not barred by the Workers' Compensation Act. The daughter's claim for loss of parental consortium is dismissed, as creating such a new cause of action is the role of the legislature or the state supreme court, not an intermediate appellate court.
Dissenting - Shannon, Justice
No, the employer's actions did not constitute an intentional tort as a matter of law based on the jury's findings. The jury's verdict established only that the employer intentionally maintained an unsafe workplace and required the employee to work there, not that the employer acted with the specific intent required for an assault. An assault requires an intent to cause an imminent apprehension of harmful contact. The jury did not make such a finding. The majority improperly infers this required intent from the phrase 'against her will.' Because the trial court rendered judgment against the husband, any omitted elements of his cause of action, such as the specific intent for assault, must be presumed to have been found against him. Therefore, the elements of an intentional tort were not met, the injury should be considered accidental, and the husband's claim should be barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'intentional tort' exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity rule by applying the doctrine of transferred intent. It broadens potential employer liability by establishing that an employer need not intend the specific physical harm that occurs to be liable for an intentional tort. By intentionally creating a situation that causes an employee to fear imminent harm (an assault), the employer can be held liable for any resulting, even unintended, physical injuries (a battery). This precedent lowers the bar for employees seeking to sue outside the workers' compensation system, putting employers on notice that intentionally disregarding an employee's fear of a known hazard can lead to tort liability beyond statutory limits.
