Turner v. PCR, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida · 2000 · Torts

TortsWorkers' compensation immunityIntentional tort exceptionworkers' compensationemployer immunityintentional tortsubstantial certaintyobjective standard

Facts

Paul Turner was killed and James Creighton was seriously injured in an explosion at PCR's chemical plant during an attempt to produce F-pentene-2 using TFE, HFP, and aluminum chloride. The record, viewed in the employees' favor, included evidence that TFE was highly explosive, that PCR had experienced at least three prior uncontrolled explosions involving the same or similar chemicals, and that PCR used a 100-pound liquid fuel cylinder lacking pressure-relief and other safety features as part of the process. The employees also presented expert affidavits stating that PCR modified the proper synthesis protocol to fit an unsafe, unsuitable existing facility and that this made explosion, injury, or death substantially certain. PCR asserted workers' compensation immunity, and the lower courts granted and affirmed summary judgment in its favor.

Issue

Whether an employer's conduct falls within the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity when the employer engages in conduct that is substantially certain to cause injury or death, and whether that substantial-certainty inquiry is governed by an objective rather than subjective standard. Also, whether the proof submitted here, including expert affidavits, created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Rule

An employer is not immune under Florida workers' compensation law for an intentional tort. An employee may prove such an intentional tort by showing either that the employer exhibited a deliberate intent to injure or that the employer engaged in conduct that was substantially certain to result in injury or death; the substantial-certainty alternative is evaluated under an objective standard, not a subjective one. The proper standard is substantial certainty, not virtual certainty, though it requires more than gross negligence.

🔒

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.

In Tampa, Gulf Meridian Coatings directed employees to clean industrial mixers with a solvent known inside the plant to ignite when compressed in sealed drums. The company had experienced two prior pressure blowouts involving the same solvent family and nevertheless required workers to pump the solvent into repurposed drums lacking pressure-relief valves. No manager said he wanted anyone injured.

If an injured employee sues outside workers' compensation for an intentional tort, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for the employer?

Explanation. The majority reaffirmed that an employee may avoid employer immunity by showing either deliberate intent to injure or conduct substantially certain to result in injury or death, and that the substantial-certainty inquiry is objective. Evidence of dangerous materials, prior similar incidents, and unsafe equipment can create a jury issue. The court also rejected any heightened 'virtual certainty' requirement.