Intentional injuries
Source:
Section 656.156 — Intentional injuries, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
Absent evidence that worker’s suicide was result of either irresistible impulse or complete lack of understanding of consequences of act, suicide was deliberately intended. Jones v. Cascade Wood Prod., Inc., 21 Or App 86, 533 P2d 1399 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
Employer’s ratification of tortious acts of employee is not employer conduct intended to injure. Bakker v. Baza’r, Inc., 275 Or 245, 551 P2d 1269 (1976); Hanson v. Versarail Systems, Inc., 175 Or App 92, 28 P3d 626 (2001)
Worker’s suicide resulting from work-related stress that produces mental derangement impairing ability to resist compulsion to take own life cannot be said to have arisen from “deliberate intention.” McGill v. SAIF, 81 Or App 210, 724 P2d 905 (1986), Sup Ct review denied; Sullivan v. Banister Pipeline AM, 86 Or App 334, 739 P2d 597 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
Chain of causation test requires that: 1) worker suffer from work-related psychological condition; 2) condition is or causes mental derangement; and 3) worker’s ability to resist temptation to take own life is impaired. Ahn v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 91 Or App 443, 756 P2d 40 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
Claimant’s noncompensable suicide does not bar recovery for compensable injuries sustained prior to suicide. Ahn v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 91 Or App 443, 756 P2d 40 (1988), Sup Ct review denied; Carling National Breweries v. McClure, 164 Or App 209, 991 P2d 578 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
“Deliberate intention” to produce injury requires specific intent to harm, not merely carelessness or gross negligence. Lusk v. Monaco Motor Homes, Inc., 97 Or App 182, 775 P2d 891 (1989); Davis v. United States Employers Council, Inc., 147 Or App 164, 934 P2d 1142 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Showing that injury resulted from deliberate intention of employer requires showing that employer specifically intended to injure some employee, that employer acted on intent and that plaintiff employee was injured as result of employer’s action. Kilminster v. Day Management Corp., 323 Or 618, 919 P2d 474 (1996)
Reckless infliction of emotional distress claim is not barred, because reckless act can be result of specific intent to produce injury. McMellon v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Or. 1996)
Personal representative of worker may maintain action based on deliberate intent to cause death of worker regardless of whether beneficiaries of action qualify to claim workers’ compensation benefits. Behurst v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., 346 Or 29, 203 P3d 207 (2009)
Where plaintiff employee did not allege facts from which factfinder could reasonably infer that employer knew that machinery would continue to malfunction without permanent fix, employee would have to monitor machinery and continue to be exposed to fumes from machinery and fumes would injure employee, employee did not show that employer deliberately intended to injure employee as required to bring claim under this section. Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC, 277 Or App 785, 373 P3d 1141 (2016), rev’d on other grounds, 362 Or 282, 407 P3d 801 (2017)
Law Review Citations
30 EL 811 (2000)
Up to date