Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin · 1984 · Torts

Tortsintentional tortsworkers' compensationloss of consortiumassaultworkers' compensation exclusivityaccidental injuryintentional tort

Facts

Western Auto's store manager knew the store's rear warehouse area was infested with bats and refused repeated requests to remove them, despite knowing they posed a serious rabies risk. Cathy Bennight, an employee, repeatedly expressed fear of the bats, and on one day was attacked by bats three times, with one becoming entangled in her hair; the next day, when required by the manager to return to the area on a business errand, she was bitten by a bat. Anti-rabies treatment caused an adverse reaction that left Cathy permanently blind and emotionally disturbed, and she later settled her workers' compensation claim. Joe sued for loss of consortium based on the manager's alleged intentional tort, and Jennifer sued for harms arising from her mother's injuries.

Issue

Did the jury findings establish that Cathy's injuries resulted from an intentional tort, so that Joe Bennight's derivative loss-of-consortium claim was not barred by the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provision? Also, did Jennifer Bennight state a cognizable cause of action under Texas law for harms she allegedly suffered as a result of the intentional tort against her mother?

Rule

Workers' compensation exclusivity bars derivative claims only for accidental injuries, not for injuries resulting from an intentional tort. An actor's unlawful intent to invade one legally protected interest of another supplies the intent necessary to impose liability for unintended but legally caused harm to another protected interest; thus, if an employer intentionally places an employee in apprehension of harmful or offensive bodily contact, that assault is an intentional tort, and the intent extends by operation of law to additional resulting injuries. A minor child has no such cause of action absent recognition by the Legislature or the Supreme Court of Texas.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a furniture warehouse in Dallas, supervisor Nolan Price knows that a storage aisle repeatedly collapses because of a broken locking mechanism. Employee Elena Ruiz has told Price she is terrified of the aisle after several near-misses, but Price orders her to retrieve inventory there anyway. A falling panel later strikes Elena, and after she settles her workers' compensation claim, her husband sues for loss of consortium.

Under the majority's reasoning, is the husband's claim most likely barred by workers' compensation exclusivity?

Explanation. The majority held that workers' compensation exclusivity bars derivative claims only for accidental injuries, not for injuries resulting from an intentional tort. If the supervisor intentionally required the employee to face a known danger against her will, thereby placing her in apprehension of harmful contact, that constitutes assault; intent then extends by operation of law to the resulting physical injury. The spouse's consortium claim is therefore not barred merely because the employee settled workers' compensation. (Derived from Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co. (n.d.).)