Comp exclusive remedy doesn’t apply to office shooting: High court
A financial adviser who was shot by a 90-year-old coworker suffering from psychological issues should have been permitted to move forward with his lawsuit against the man’s estate because the matter doesn’t fall within workers compensation exclusive remedy, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that Christopher Bayouth, a financial adviser who was shot by a 90-year-old coworker, should be allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against the shooter's estate due to workers compensation exclusive remedy. The court stated that a trial judge wrongly granted summary judgment to the estate of the shooter, who was suffering from psychological issues, and that only an injured employee, not the perpetrator, must act within the course and scope of employment for an incident to be covered by workers comp. The high court disagreed, stating that employees seeking exclusive remedy protections must also act within their employment to keep the matter in workers comp and not be subject to such an incident.
公開済み : 10ヶ月前 沿って の General
A financial adviser who was shot by a 90-year-old coworker suffering from psychological issues should have been permitted to move forward with his lawsuit against the man’s estate because the matter doesn’t fall within workers compensation exclusive remedy, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The high court said a trial judge wrongly granted summary judgment to the estate of the shooter, who shot Christopher Bayouth in June 2022 at a Morgan Stanley office in Oklahoma City.
Mr. Bayouth sued the shooter’s estate for assault, battery and emotional distress. He also sued the shooter’s wife for negligence.
The defendants sought the suit’s dismissal, contending Mr. Bayouth received workers compensation benefits for his injuries and was barred from suing.
Mr. Bayouth argued comp exclusive remedy didn’t apply because the shooter wasn’t working on the day of the incident and was not acting within the course and scope of his employment.
The trial court ruled the case was covered by exclusive remedy and that only an injured employee, not a perpetrator, must act within the course and scope of employment for an incident to be covered by comp.
The high court disagreed, saying employees who seek exclusive remedy protections – in this case, the shooter’s estate – must also act within the course and scope of employment to keep the matter in workers comp.
トピック: Crime