“[Vjiolation of government safety regulations, even if wilful and knowing, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort.”
How later courts described this case
- “[Vjiolation of government safety regulations, even if wilful and knowing, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort.”
- applying 85 O.S.Supp.2006 § 12
- “[V]iolation of governmental safety regulations, even if willful and knowing, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort or an actual intent to injure.”
- “[Nothing short of a demonstration of the employer’s knowledge of the substantial certainty of injury will suffice.” (emphasis omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPALA, J.,
concurring in part
¶ 1 Because I did not join the court’s pronouncement in Parret v. UNICCO Service Co., 2005 OK 54 , 127 P.3d 572 , I cannot concur in today’s entire opinion. Insofar as the court appears to extend to some appel-lees full protection of the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy found in 85 O.S. Supp.2005 § 12, by exonerating them from all tort liability at common law, I concur. But I am compelled to recede from all other parts of the court’s holding.