Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.

Nature of the Case

This lawsuit involved a personal injury action under the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act. Dow Chemical (D) appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals which allowed Beauchamp (P) to proceed to trial on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract against the company despite the Act.

Facts

Beauchamp worked for Dow for two years as a research chemist. He applied for workers’ compensation benefits, claiming that exposure to Agent Orange caused impairment of normal bodily functions. Beauchamp and his wife then filed a civil action against Dow, claiming that he had been physically and mentally affected by exposure to Agent Orange and that the company intentionally misrepresented and fraudulently concealed the potential danger. He claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault.

The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dow on the basis that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an allegation of a true intentional tort is not within the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act. It remanded the cause for trial on the intentional infliction of emotional distress count.

The Court of Appeals also reversed and remanded for trial on the breach of contract claim, stating that a contract claim was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by the circuit court of the other two tort counts. Dow appealed.

Issues

  1. Are intentional torts included in worker’s compensation?
  2. Under worker’s compensation should intentional torts include those committed under a substantial certainty?
  3. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, will he be treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result?

Holding and Rule of Law

  1. Yes. Intentional torts are included in worker’s compensation.
  2. Yes. Under worker’s compensation intentional torts should include those committed under a substantial certainty.
  3. Yes. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he will be treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result.

The legislature was not considering the law governing intentional torts by employers. To avoid confusion, the legislature made it clear that by removing the employer’s defense in negligence, and easing recovery by employees, it was not making the employer liable for injuries employees willfully inflicted on themselves. The accident requirement assures that neither the employee nor the employer can use the workers’ compensation act as a means of benefiting from their own intentional misconduct.

Intentional torts are not accidents. In deciding whether an incident was an accident, the incident should always be viewed from the perspective of the person seeking the protection of the act.

Including intentional torts within the ambit of an accident would mean the Legislature intended to limit substantially an employee’s recovery for intentional injury inflicted by the employer. It would mean that the Legislature not only intended to limit the employer’s liability, but also intended to allow ‘an intentional tortfeasor to shift his liability to a fund paid for with premiums collected from innocent employers.’

In most states the exclusivity provision of the workers’ compensation act does not preclude a civil action by an employee alleging an intentional tort by the employer. A majority of courts have held that an employer who deliberately harms his employee is not shielded from liability by the exclusivity of the particular jurisdiction’s workers’ compensation remedy.

There are some states that hold that common-law suits are precluded by the exclusivity provisions. An employer who inflicts an intentional tort on his employee cannot claim it is accidental.

Although a number of courts have agreed that the exclusivity provision of a workers’ compensation act does not preclude employees from bringing intentional tort actions against their employers, the courts have not been able to agree on a definition of ‘intentional’ in this context. Some courts have limited the recovery to so-called ‘true intentional torts,’ that is, when the employer truly intended the injury as well as the act. Other courts have relied on the standard in the Restatement of Torts, 2d, stating that when the employer intended the act that caused the injury and knew that the injury was substantially certain to occur from the act, the employer has committed an intentional tort.

The substantial certainty test has apparently been extended by at least one state to cover substantial likelihood of injury. It has been said, however, that a high risk or probability of harm is not equivalent to the substantial certainty without which an actor cannot be said to intend the harm in which his act results. A number of states have adopted an intentional tort test requiring an actual intent to injure.

The ‘substantial certainty’ line of cases defines intentional tort more broadly. An intentional tort is not limited to consequences which are desired. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. It does not matter whether the employer wishes the injury would not occur or does not care whether it occurs. If the injury is substantially certain to occur as a consequence of actions the employer intended, the employer is deemed to have intended the injuries as well. The substantial certainty test tracks the Restatement definition of an intentional tort.

The problem with the substantial certainty test is that it is difficult to draw the line between substantial certainty and substantial risk. In applying the substantial certainty test, some courts have confused intentional, reckless, and even negligent misconduct, and therefore blurred the line between intentional and accidental injuries.

The true intentional tort standard keeps the distinction clear. The problem with the true intentional tort test appears to be that it allows employers to injure and even kill employees and suffer only workers’ compensation damages so long as the employer did not specifically intend to hurt the worker. We adopt the substantial certainty standard but in this context substantial certainty should not be equated with substantial likelihood.

Disposition

Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Related posts: