Eckis v. Sea World case brief summary
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
FACTS
-Respondent employee brought a tort action alleging fraud, negligence, and liability for an animal with vicious or dangerous propensities against appellants, employer and supervisor, based on the personal injuries she sustained while at work and performing with a Killer Whale.
HOLDING:
-The court held that the undisputed evidence did not support the jury's verdict for respondent.
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
FACTS
-Respondent employee brought a tort action alleging fraud, negligence, and liability for an animal with vicious or dangerous propensities against appellants, employer and supervisor, based on the personal injuries she sustained while at work and performing with a Killer Whale.
-The court reversed the judgment that awarded compensatory damages to respondent and directed the superior court to enter a judgment for appellants.
HOLDING:
-The court held that the undisputed evidence did not support the jury's verdict for respondent.
ANALYSIS:
The court determined that the evidence established that her injuries were compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act.
-The court ruled that respondent's exclusive remedy was to instead proceed against appellants under the Act.
-The court decided therefore that the superior court should have granted appellants' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
-The court liberally construed the Act and found that respondent's injuries arose in the course of employment. Therefore, the court rejected respondent's contention that her injuries were unrelated to the secretarial duties for which she was originally hired.
CONCLUSION
-The court reversed the judgment that awarded compensatory damages to respondent employee in her tort action against appellants, employer and supervisor, that alleged fraud, negligence, and liability for an animal with vicious or dangerous propensities.
CONCLUSION
-The court reversed the judgment that awarded compensatory damages to respondent employee in her tort action against appellants, employer and supervisor, that alleged fraud, negligence, and liability for an animal with vicious or dangerous propensities.
-The court directed the superior court to enter a judgment for appellants because the undisputed evidence established that respondent's injuries were exclusively covered by worker's compensation.
NOTES:-P's official title of employment was “secretary” although she did odd jobs occasionally.
-The supervisor asked her to ride Shamu in a bathing suit for publicity photos for D corp.
-During ride she was injured by whale.
ISSUE: If activities surrounding injury are not related to ‘ees normal duties, is person still “ee” for workers comp/tort damages purposes?
Policy: “where reas doubt exists as to whether an act of an ee is contemplated by employment, or as to whether an injury occurred in the course of employmt… resolve doubt in favor of workers comp and against tort claims.”
RULES: at time of injury, P was 1. ee of D, 2. on er premises, 3. during her regular working hours, 4. engaging in activity her er requested her to perform, 5. was trained and provided means by er for said activity, 6. activity related to and furthered D business.
HOLDING: because of policy and factors, P was ee at time of injury.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
NOTES:-P's official title of employment was “secretary” although she did odd jobs occasionally.
-The supervisor asked her to ride Shamu in a bathing suit for publicity photos for D corp.
-During ride she was injured by whale.
ISSUE: If activities surrounding injury are not related to ‘ees normal duties, is person still “ee” for workers comp/tort damages purposes?
Policy: “where reas doubt exists as to whether an act of an ee is contemplated by employment, or as to whether an injury occurred in the course of employmt… resolve doubt in favor of workers comp and against tort claims.”
RULES: at time of injury, P was 1. ee of D, 2. on er premises, 3. during her regular working hours, 4. engaging in activity her er requested her to perform, 5. was trained and provided means by er for said activity, 6. activity related to and furthered D business.
HOLDING: because of policy and factors, P was ee at time of injury.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment