Workers' Compensation Case Law Update - Burns Int'l Sec. Servs. Corp. v. Johnson
On March 19, 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided this case. The underlying facts of this case are tragic. Ms. Johnson was employed as a night security guard. She was murdered one night while assigned to guard a vacant and historically dangerous property. Her family brought an action against her employer Burns Security for wrongful death.
The Court of Appeals held that Ms. Johnson's family's rights were limited by Georgia Workers' Compensation Law. Specifically, the Exclusive Remedy Provision contained at O.C.G.A. 34-9-11 generally prohibits injured workers from bringing civil lawsuits against their employers. In this case, the Court held that Ms. Johnson's family was limited to workers' compensation benefits and could not bring a lawsuit against her employer.
It is important to note that there are several exceptions to this general rule. An attorney should be consulted when this situation arises as soon as possible.
Comments
I just read this opinion today. I wouldn't mind seeing the appellate transcript on this one. Although it appears to me the Court of Appeals tried to follow the law here, I think it is likely that it set itself up as a fact finding body, which is legal error. If the murderers who committed this atrocious "accident" were never apprhended, I wonder how there could be sufficient evidence presented by the defendant at the summary judgment level to show by clear, plain and palpable evidence that this intentional "accident" wasn't carried out for purely personal reasons? Who would even be able to testify to this if the crime is unsolved? Maybe the plaintiff's argument that the wc exclusive remedy rule does not apply should fail at trial, based on a jury's determination of the facts, but not at summary judgment under the above standard, (flimsy as it seems to be, which is a whole other can of worms). In addition, this case shows the General Assembly needs to change the law in this area. I believe intentional (meaning specific intent)"accidents" arising out of the course of employment resulting in death or physical injury to the victim, should allow the victim or their estate/next of kin the option of electing wc benefits (if there are dependents) or alternatively pursuing a tort claim against the employer if there is a possibility of negligence. Elect one or the other. The way it is now has made for terrible public policy, at least in this instance, heaping an injustice upon the tragedy. Moreover, the current doctrine as applied makes for a rather subjective analysis, and would seem rather difficult to apply. I mean isn't robbing and murdering someone to steal their money and car a crime executed for purely personal motives? (i.e. monetary gain) regardless of the fact the security guard job may have exposed the victim to the danger simply by putting her in the wrong place at the wrong time. And why should the security guard be treated any differently than anyone else intentionally injured or killed as a result of being at the wrong place at the wrong time through no apparent fault of their own? Seems a rather arbitrary dichotomy which doesn't make logiocal sense has been drawn by application of the current doctrine. Moreover, time and place alone aren't supposed to be dispositive of whether the accident arises out of the course of employment, and in the end, wasn't the victim simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? Finally, does this outcome really serve the humanitarian purposes of the WC Act?
Posted by: David K. May | April 6, 2007 10:22 PM