Piercing Idaho’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

Piercing Idaho’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

On January 31, 2024, an airplane hanger under construction at the Boise Airport collapsed.  Pictures of the site on local news outlets showed mangled steel beams, toppled man lifts, bent lifting cranes, and significant damage to the structure.  According to these same news reports, several people at the construction site sustained injuries and tragically at least three people lost their lives.  Allegations of safety violations are also being suggested.

I have represented many people involved in serious industrial accidents over the years.  I have had my fair share of cases involving collapsed structures and even more involving falls from ladders, scissor lifts, scaffolding and other high places.  As you can imagine, these cases usually involve serious injury.

One of the first questions I get from those seriously injured is whether they can recover against the employer in court.  It’s a good question, as many people with serious injuries quickly learn that workers’ compensation benefits are limited in what they cover.

Idaho’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

I answer this question first by giving some history on our system.  Our workers’ compensation system was created as a compromise between big business and big labor to find a better solution for dealing with work-related injuries.  Both sides gave up something to get something.  Workers gave up the ability to sue their employer for negligence and damages in court in exchange for up front medical benefits and some wage benefits to help the injured worker get back on their feet and back to work.

Employers received limited financial exposure and more predictability in exchange for providing these medical and income benefits to injured workers.  Employers also received immunity from lawsuits in the courts from employees injured on the job.

This immunity from suit in the courts is what we call the “Exclusive Remedy” rule, meaning that your only remedy for a work injury, as against your employer, is in the workers’ compensation system.  This rule is established in Idaho Code §72-209.

EXCLUSIVENESS OF LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 72-223, Idaho Code, the liability of the employer under this law shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer to the employee, his spouse, dependents, heirs, legal representatives or assigns. I.C. §72-209(1) emphasis added.

The rule is very broad and covers almost all accidents and injuries at work.  However, in Idaho there is a limited exception when the employer has crossed a line and put profits above the safety of its employees.

The Exception to the Exclusive Remedy Rule

Idaho’s Workers Compensation law was created by statute, and the legislators that passed it understood that there are extreme cases where an employer has done something so unconscionable and so irresponsible, that they no longer deserve the immunity the Rule provides.  In those circumstances an injured employee (or their surviving family members in the case of death) could bring a case in court to recover damages for the negligence of the employer resulting in the injury/death of the worker.

Idaho Code §72-209(3) provides this exception:

(3)  The exemption from liability given an employer by this section shall also extend to the employer’s surety and to all officers, agents, servants and employees of the employer or surety, provided that such exemptions from liability shall not apply in any case where the injury or death is proximately caused by the willful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer, its officers, agents, servants or employees, which physical aggression must include clear and convincing evidence the employer, its officers, agents, servants, or employees either specifically intended to harm the employee or engaged in conduct knowing that injury or death to the employee was substantially likely to occur. IC 72-209(3) emphasis added.

So if an employee is injured due to either the willful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer, then if there is clear and convincing evidence that this was either the intention of the employer, or they acted (or omitted to do something) in a way where they knew the injury was substantially likely to occur the employee can pierce the immunity protection the law provides and sue the employer for negligence in court.  By its nature, this is a very high bar.  The high bar to meet this exception naturally places the vast number of work injuries squarely within the workers’ compensation system.

Now a lot is still not known about the hanger collapse on January 31, 2024.  Rumors swirl like crazy after a major accident involving the injury and death of people.  But what will surprise many, is that even if government agencies find that there were safety violations at this construction site, this alone may not be enough to satisfy Idaho’s immunity exception.  The bar to meet the exception again is very high.

Idaho’s workers compensation law protects employers even when they violate most work safety rules.  The drafters wanted “plain old” mistakes by the employer, even if they involved very serious injuries and consequences to the worker, to be protected from civil liability in the courts.  To get around that immunity, the question turns on whether the employer either intended to hurt the injured employee (not very common or likely) or were so indifferent about the risk of harm and danger to the employee that it was completely foreseeable and likely that the injury would occur, but they just went ahead and had the employee continue to work under the significant and likely risk of harm.  Let me illustrate the rule with some hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario #1:

I do not have any inside information about the facts on the ground in the hanger collapse, but let us suppose for the sake of illustration that in the construction of this hanger, there should have been some piece of equipment or device put in place to prevent the whole structure from collapsing at this stage of construction.  Let us also suppose that this piece of equipment was incorrectly installed.  Not knowingly, but negligently.  Perhaps the new guy installed it and did not understand how to do it properly.  As a result, the hanger fails and the injuries are sustained. Under this hypothetical set of facts, simply incorrectly installing the device would not be enough to overcome the immunity.  It’s a mistake but not an intentional one, and not one that anyone anticipated would likely occur.

Scenario #2:

Let us now change the facts.  Suppose now the employer had knowledge that this same safety device was defective and should be replaced before it could safely support the hanger and prevent a collapse.  The employer decides because of cost or time considerations that they are not going to replace the device and just going to take the risk that it does not fail.  They know that if this device fails, the hanger falls, and that could result in injury to their workers.  Nevertheless, they order their employees to move forward and use the defective equipment/device with this knowledge.  The employer does not deliberately want anyone specifically to get hurt.  But they do know that the device should be replaced and it’s a very real risk that the hanger could collapse hurting others.  The employer decides to tell the employees to work with what they got and move forward regardless of the obvious risk and danger.  The employer is essentially gambling with his employees’ wellbeing.  The employees dutifully do so.  The hanger collapses and injuries occur as a result of the failure of the equipment.

Under this second scenario, the injured workers would have a shot at piercing the immunity and suing the employer in court for negligence, recklessness etc.  If the employer knows about a real danger, knows that the risk of that danger could result in significant harm to its employees, and disregards the risk and danger that is more than simply a mistake.  This indifference to the risks of severe danger would likely permit the employee to satisfy the requirements of the exception.

The difference between these scenarios is the intentions and indifference of the employer.  If there is extreme disregard for the likely danger by the employer and that indifference causes the injuries of its employees, then the employee has a shot of overcoming the immunity of the exclusive remedy rule.

Moreover, if some activity is more likely to result in harm that the employer can see, then it is more likely a court would allow an injured worker to qualify under the exception.  The greater the danger, the greater the care that should be taken to avoid that danger.  An employer cannot hide behind the exclusive remedy rule’s immunity if they are telling the employee to figuratively walk a highwire without a harness.  In my view, an employer gambling with the lives of its employees crosses a line when the employer loses the gamble and employees are injured.

Conclusion

The horrible hanger collapse in January is a reminder of how dangerous some jobs are.  It should be a reminder to both workers and employers about how they should watch out for themselves and each other so as to prevent unnecessary injury.  Doing so creates a better, healthier work force, avoids costly medical and wage claims, and most importantly keeps people safe from danger and the injury from it.

Not every case of an employer violating rules is going to permit an injured worker to bring a case in court as we’ve seen.  However, if an employer does the unconscionable and puts an employee in an unreasonably dangerous situation and that danger results in harm to the employee, the employer is at risk of losing the immunity.  Every scenario is different, and the best thing an injured worker can do is seek advice and counsel from an attorney who understands this area of the law if they think their employer crossed that line.  Doing so ensures that employers who take unreasonable risks with their employees lives can be held accountable.