Carolyn Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken
1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12512, 829 F.2d 10 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, an employer's failure to remedy a known dangerous condition, even a significant one, constitutes negligence and not an intentional tort, unless the employer knew with substantial certainty that an injury would result from its inaction.
Facts:
- Carolyn Morgan was an employee of Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc.
- The Church's restaurant where Morgan worked had been robbed approximately six times in the past in a similar fashion.
- Church's Fried Chicken was aware of these prior robberies and the unsafe conditions at the location.
- The company did not install a bulletproof shield for its employees or post a security guard on the premises.
- While working at the restaurant, an intruder shot Carolyn Morgan.
- As a result of the shooting, Morgan was permanently, painfully, and severely injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Carolyn Morgan filed a complaint against Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. in a Michigan state court.
- Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. removed the case to the federal district court based on diversity of citizenship.
- After filing an answer, Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act.
- The district court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
- Carolyn Morgan, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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's failure to provide additional security, despite knowing the premises had been robbed multiple times before, constitute an intentional tort that overcomes the exclusive remedy provision of the Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Milburn, Circuit Judge
No, an employer's failure to provide additional security, despite knowledge of prior robberies, does not constitute an intentional tort sufficient to overcome the Act's exclusive remedy provision. An intentional tort requires that the employer knew the consequences of its act or omission were 'certain, or substantially certain, to result.' While the employer's knowledge of six prior robberies indicates an appreciation of risk, which may constitute negligence or even recklessness, it does not meet the high standard of substantial certainty required for an intentional tort. A claim based on an employer's failure to provide safe working conditions is fundamentally a claim of negligence, which is barred by the workers' compensation statute.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to meet the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation exclusivity. It clarifies that an employer's knowledge of a significant, repeated risk of harm to employees does not, by itself, elevate a claim from negligence to an intentional tort. The ruling makes it more difficult for employees injured by third-party criminal acts to sue their employers directly, channeling such claims into the workers' compensation system unless the employee can prove the employer was substantially certain the specific injury would occur. This strengthens the exclusive remedy provision as a shield for employers against tort liability for most workplace injuries.
Unlock the full brief for Carolyn Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken