Thread: Does this sound like a realistic case to get sued over (and lose)?

In this book I'm writing, the main character runs some kind of factory, and he loses a lot of money because he was sued by one of his employees over an injury. I was thinking that the employee either tripped over a wire and broke something, or general inattentiveness caused his hand to get cut off.

The lawsuit, yes, but the company will have insurance covering themselves for accidents & lawsuits. They could lose the lawsuit but that wouldn't put them out of business. If the insurance company raises the premiums after that, that could hurt the company if they were financially unstable anyway.

If the company has great lawyers, they're going to place the blame on the employee for his inattention. All depends on the circumstances.

I concur. A company should have insurance to cover lawsuits like you describe. There are some situations that an insurance company would refuse to cover, such as if the employer did something criminal, then he could be sued as well as prosecuted. In the lawsuit you describe, the employee would have to show that his employer failed in some kind of workplace responsibility such as providing a safe work environment. If your factory owner must lose a lot of money because of someone else's actions, consider that your factory owner failed to keep a contract: If he had to deliver a certain number of widgets by a certain time and an employee caused a delay, then the contract specified that the owner had to pay a penalty to the other party in the contract. The other party in the contract might then refuse to renew the contract in favor of a more reliable supplier etc... This scenario would give your character a specific employee to blame for the lose of his very important customer.... Have you heard of zero inventory manufacturing? This could be a scenario where your factory owner had to deliver by a certain time or face a penalty. Good luck. C.M.

Actually, in the US this would be a work comp injury, since it was an employee, so there would be no lawsuit and no huge damage verdict, only the more limited benefits available under hte workers compensation act.

There is a narrow exception for intentionally and grossly recklessly caused harm, (for example, assault by the employer/owner or filling a gas mask with acidic or poisonous gas as a joke but which actually causes serious harm) which would allow a direct suit in addition to work comp benefits, and a punitive damage award of up to 10 times the amount of actual damages awarded. Liability insurance policies generally exclude coverage for intentional acts, and for punitive damages awards.

But would being covered by Workman's Comp prevent him from filing anyway, i.e., is he still legally allowed to file suit?

Originally Posted by CFFTB

But would being covered by Workman's Comp prevent him from filing anyway, i.e., is he still legally allowed to file suit?

Not under most circumstances. If the matter is covered under any workers' compensation legislation, then any civil suit would be considered vexatious.

However, if the company has cause to, and fights the workers' comp claim (say, if the owner or manager believes that the worker faked the injury or deliberately inflicted self-harm, which could be physical, emotional, or chemical), then the matter can be tied up in arbitration hearings and appeals for years. This can cost a lot of money.

Further, the claimant would still have to be paid whatever the pro-rata income would be (this varies from place to place and between industries), and medical expenses covered, pending the final decision; this does affect the company's obligations to the insurer (in some cases up to 50% of costs, recoverable if the company wins the final decision).

Finally, the claimant may win the final decision (whether or not the claim was legitimate), leaving the company liable for all uncovered costs (legal fees, investigators, etc), and probably under investigation for unsafe working environment, as well as increased insurance premiums.