I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 1 4 5 4 - S CT FRAN KL I N C OR P ORAT

ION
v. P AU L I NE T ED FORD , L ORA S

M I T H, J UDY HAI RE AN D S AMANT HA MI XON ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 26/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW K. HO W OR TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CALHOUN COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J AM E S L AW T ON R OB E RT S ON J ENN I FER HU GH ES S CO TT ELI ZAB ETH G
. HO OPER BRI DGET E
. KOBS A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : H E B E R S
. S IM M O N S , III W I L L I AM M E L VI N R OS AM OND DO UG LAS G
. M ERCI ER J OHN ROBI N BRADLEY, J R. NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - W OR KE RS ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 10/ 2009 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 05/ 14/ 2009 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he m ot i on f

orr ehea r i ng f

i l ed by Fr ank l i n C orporat i on i s denied. T he pr evi ous
o p inion s o f th is C o u rtare w ith d raw n an d thes e o p inion s are su b sti tuted there for. ¶2. T oday w e ar e pr es ent ed w i t h t he l at es t conf l i ct i n t he ongoi ng l egal s t ruggl e betw een in d u stry a n d lab o r re g a rd in g co m p e n sa tio n an d m e d ica l i n d e m n ity fo r em p lo y e e s in ju re d in

### 2

t he w or kpl ace . T he appe l l ees / empl oyees s eek t o expand the scope of egr egi ous conduct excl uded f

r om t he M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on L aw ( “A ct ”) t o i ncl ude ac t s w hi ch
ar e “s ubs t ant i al l y cert ai n” t o caus e i nj ury t o the empl oyee. N ots urpr i s i ngl y, the appel l ant/ empl oyercl amors f ort he oppos i t e, r eques t i ng t hatthi s C our toverrul e Mil lerv. McR ae’s, I

nc. , 44 4 S o. 2d 3 68 (M i ss. 19 84 ), and i t s progen y an d retreatfr om t hese deci s i ons , w hi ch excl ude empl oyer s ’ t or ti m m uni t y f orc ert ai n e gr egi ous act s acc om pani ed b y a n “ a c tu a l in ten t to in ju re ” th e e m p lo y e e . A fte r d u e co n sid e ra tio n an d d e lib e ra tio n , this C our tch oo ses t o do nei t her
. T he cons t i tut i onal l y del i neat ed f orum f orchange i s t he M i ssi ssi pp i L egis l ature, n o t t h i s C ou rt . W e fi nd that the co rr ectbalance i s i n p l ace an d so
s hal l r emai n, unl es s t he Legi s l atur e s houl d deci de otherw i s e. ¶3. I n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce , Paul i ne T edf or d, L or a Sm i t h, J udy H ai r e, and Samant ha M i xon ( “ P l a i n t i f f s ” ) f i l e d s u i ta l l e g i n g mul t i p l e c l a i ms a g a i n s tmul t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s , i n c l u d i n g c l a i ms agai ns tt hei rempl oyer , F r ankl i n C orpor at i on, f orbatt ery and i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of
e m o tio n a l d istre ss a risin g fro m in ju rie s s u sta in e d in th e c o u rse a n d sc o p e o f th e ir
em p loy m en t. F ran k li n C o rpo rati o n fil ed a “M o ti o n to D ism iss” an d a “ M o ti o n for S u m m ary Ju d g m e n t,” c o n ten d in g tha t th e e x c lu siv e re m e d y fo r th e P lain tiffs w a s p ro v id e d b y th e A c t. A f t erdue cons i der at i on by t he ci r cui tc our t , the tr i al j udge deni ed the r el i ef s oughtand s et th e m a tter f

o r tria l. A t t ria l, th e ju ry fo u n d in fa v o r o f th e P lain tiffs, a w a rd in g b o th
c o m p e n sa to ry a n d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T h e re a fte r, th e c irc u it co u rt d e n ied F ra n k lin C orpor at i on’ s “M ot i on f orJ
. N
. O
. V
. , ori n the A l t ernat i ve, f orN ew T r i al orR emi t t i tur , ” but reduced t he p un i t i ve d am age aw ard. F rom tho se ruli ng s, F rankl i n C orporat i on app eal s.

### For e xam ple , “ [e ] ver

y me chanic alem

ploym ent has a pr edi ct abl e haz ard: of a 1 

### tho usan d menwh o climb to d izzy h eights in erecting steel structures a certainnumber w ill fall to d eath, an d o f a th ou sandg irls who feedmetal strip s into stampin g mach ines a certain numbe r wi llhavethe ir

finger s c rus hed. ” E .H . D o w n e y , Histo ry o f W o rk A c c id e n t In d e m n ity i n I o wa 5 (B en

jam in F
. S h am b au g h , ed
. , S tat e H ist o ri ca l So ciety o f Iow a 1 9 1 2 ). 

### 3 HI S TORI CAL BA CKGROUND ¶4. T h e d e m a n d o f la b o r fo r th e p ro te c tio n o f w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a tio n la w s is w e lle s ta b lis h e d
. See O .W . H o lm e s , The P ath of the Law , 10 H arv. L
. R ev. 457, 466- 67 ( 1897) (“ [s]inc e th e las t w o rd s w e re w ritten , I h a v e se e n th e re q u ire m e n t of su c h in su ra n c e p u t fo rth
a s p a rt o f th e p ro g ra m m e o f o n e o f th e b e st k n o w n la b o r o rg a n iza tio n s.” ). T h is w a s la rg e ly i n r es pons e t o the deni al of e m pl oyeri ndemni t y i n the maj or i t y of w or kpl ace acc i dent s , due t o t he l ack of

pr oof of empl oyerf

aul t orempl oyerdef

ens es s uch as contr i but ory negl i gence , 1
a s s u m p tio n o f r is k , a n d t h e f e ll o w -s e rv a n t ru le
. See D o w n e y , His t or y of W ork Acci dent I n d e mn i t y i n I o wa a t 5 , 1 7 , 7 8 . T h e p re v a ili n g v iew o f la b o r w a s th a t: [ a] n i ndemni t y s ys t em w hi ch t edi ous l y gr i nds outs uch r es ul t s as these i s no bet t ert han a ga m bl e – a ga m bl e w hi ch aw ar ds a f ew pr i zes t o i nj ur ed per s ons and del udes al l ot heri nj ur ed per s ons i nt o t hi nki ng they ar e goi ng t o dr aw p riz e s, to o , w h e n , as a m a tter o f f a c t, th e y a re g o in g to d ra w b lan k s; a g a m b le w hich m akes t he em ployer pay p repost erous sum s t o cert ai n p eop l e and so pr event s hi m f

r om paying reasonabl e s um s t o al l
. I ti s on t he s ame l evel as f ar o. Id . a t 8 0 (i n te rn a l q u o ta ti o n m a r k s o m itte d ). See al s o P .V . F is h b a c k & S .E . K a n to r, A P r el ude t o the W

el f ar e Stat e: The O r igins of W orker s ’C om pens at i on , 11 ( U ni ver s i ty of C hicago 2 00 0) ( “[ r] efor m ers decri ed the com m on l aw s yst em ” f or uncom pen sat ed inj uri es, “un cert ai n an d u neq ual payo uts , ” high tr ansact i on al co st s, an d delay)
. B y t he earl y 1 90 0s, P res i den tT heo do re R oo sevel ti ncluded “com prehen si ve w o rkm en’s com pen sat i on act s”

### The mutua l be nef it of the wor

ker s’ co mpensati on sys te m in Mis si ss ippiwas 2 

### describ ed as fo llow s: bo th the e mpl oyer s and em ploye es wil l bemate ri al ly be nef itte d by this 4 w ith in h is p ro g re s s iv e p ro g ra m fo r e c o n o m ic re fo rm , th e “ S q u a re D e a l.” T . R o o s e v e lt, The N ew N ati on alism ( A ug . 3 1, 1 91 0) , i n 13 The A nnal s of A m er i ca 2 5 0 , 2 5 3 (E n c y c lo p e d ia B ri tann ica, I n c. 19 7 6 ). ¶5. T he s ubs equent “adve nt of s t at e w or ker s ’ compensa t i on l aw s af t er 1910 m arked the
r emoval f

r om t he t or ts ys t em of most suit s by i nj ur ed w or ker s agai ns templ oyer s . ” N ot e, E xce pt i ons t o the E

xclus i ve Rem edy Requi r em ent s of W orker s ’C om pens at i on Stat ut es , 96 H arv. L
. R ev. 1641, 1641 (198 3). In f act , “[ b] etw een 1911 a nd 1920, 41 s t at es enac t ed
w or ker s ’ compensa t i on s t atut es . ” Id
. a t 1 6 4 1 n .1 (c itin g E .H . D o w n e y , W orkm ens’ C om pens at i on , 162 n. 18 ( 1924) )
. I ni t i al l y, s om e cour t s deem ed suc h st atut es t o be s o r adi cal
as t o cons t i tut e an unc ons t i tut i onal depr i vat i on of the empl oyer ’ s pr oper t y w i t houtdue p ro c e s s o f l a w . See I

ves v. South B uf

f alo R y. , 2 0 1 N. Y. 27 1 , 94 N
. E. 43 1 ( 1 9 1 1 ) ; J
. C. S a tte rf ie ld , A n I ntr oduct i on to the Mis s is s i ppi W orkm ens ’C om

pens at i on A ct , 2 0 M i ss. L
. J. 27, 31 ( 1948) ( “thr ee of t he f oura ct s a dopt ed pr i ort o 1911 w er e dec l ar ed uncons t i tut i onal

. . . ”)
. H ow ever , af

t ert hei rw i des pr ead a cce pt ance had bee n es t abl i s hed: M issi ssipp i bec am e the laststat e to a d o p t a sy stem o f W o rkm en ’s C om pen sat i on . T his t yp e of l egis l at i on i s general l y v i ew ed as a co m prom i se betw een the i nt er es tof

l aborand bus i nes s . B eca us e of the exc l us i ve natur e of t he r emedy l abors ur r ender s t he r i ghtt o as s erta comm on l aw t or tact i on al ong w ith th e att en d an t p o ssibil ity of ac h ievin g pu n it ive d am ag es. In ex ch an g e it r ece i ves as s ur ance t hatan aw ar d i s f or t hcomi ng. I ndus t r y s urr ender s i t s thr ee m aj orcomm on l aw def

ens es : contr i but ory ne gl i gence , a s s um pt i on of r i s k, and th e fe llo w s e rv a n t ru le. In e x c h a n g e it rec e iv e s th e k n o w led g e th a t th e re w ill be no out r ageous l y l ar ge j udgm ent s aw ar ded t o i nj ur ed empl oyees . [ ] T he 2

### le gis lati on. Thepsyc hologi ca l e ff ec t upon indus trie s c oming int o Mis si ss ippi is good, and it

a ppears that

theem ploye rs on theave ra ge wi llre ap a financ ia l saving and the em

ploye es a f inanci albenef

it
. On thewhol e theAc t i s f air and worka ble , and com

par es favora

bly with the st at

ute s now in exi st enc e in the oth er states. Satterfield , An Introduction to theMiss issi ppi Wor kme ns’ Compens ati on Act , 20 M iss. L.J. at 48. Thes e “no- fa

ult” as pirations of

the Act have been l ar gel y m et , as s t at i s t i cs f r om 2007 3 r evea l t hatm or e than s eventy- ei ghtper centof l os t - t i m e ca s es i n M i s s i s s i ppi ar e uncont es t ed. See M is s is s ip p i W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n C o m m is s io n , Annu al Rep or tCum ul at i ve I nf orm at i on Tabl es , at http://w w w . m w cc. s t at e. m s . us / i nf o/_an nreport cum u. asp ( “ To t a l Cl a i ms b y Y ea r”) (l ast v isi ted S ep t. 1 , 2 0 0 9 ). 

### 5 e n tire s y ste m w a s d e s ig n e d to in su re th a t th o se in ju re d a s a re su lt o f th e ir e mp l o y me n two u l d n o tb e r e d u c e d t o a p e n n i l e s s s t a t e a n d th e r e b y b e c o me depende nton s om e f

or m of governm ent al publ i c as s i s t ance . Mil ler , 4 4 4 S o . 2 d a t 3 7 0
. See al s o Steve ns v. F

M C Cor p. , 515 So. 2d 928, 932 (M i s s . 1987) ( quot i ng Saw

yerv. Head , 510 So. 2d 472, 477 ( M i s s . 1987) ) ( “[ b] y the exc hange, t he r emedy of w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s , i ns ofa ras t he r i ghtof t he empl oyee a gai ns t[ the]
e mp l o y e ra n d f

e l l o w e mp l o y e e s a r e c o n c e r n e d , i s a b r o g a t e d
. ” ) ; J o h n R. Br a d l e y & Li n d a A. T h o m p s o n , Mis s is s i

ppi W orker s ’C om pens at i on § 1: 1 ( 2007) ( “[ t ] hus , compensa t i on by t he
e m p lo y e r fo r m o st e m p lo y m e n t in ju rie s h a s b e e n tak e n o u t of the tor t law a n d p lac e d w ith in
a s epar at e br anch of

l aw – w or ker ’ s compensa t i on, a no- f aul tpl an[ ] h and l ed i n an

3 adm i ni s t r at i ve s et t i ng by an exe cut i ve br anch a gency. ”)
. U l t i m at el y, t he w orker s’
com pe n sati o n syst em l end s val uab l e predi ct abil i t y to both em ployees and em ployers
. E m p lo y e e s re c e iv e g u a ra n tee d c o m p e n sa tio n fo r c o v e re d in ju rie s, b y p a s s in g th e c iv ill i t i gati on ri sks of ei t her no recov ery or unco l l ect i ble j ud gm ents againsti nsolventem ployers
.

### 6

E m ployers recei ve fi xed l evels of potent i al l i abil i t y w hich they can an t i ci pate and tr eatas a g e n e ra l “ c o s t o f d o in g b u s in e s s .” ¶6. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 71-3- 9 provi des , i n par t , t hat“[ t ] he l i abi l i t y of an empl oyer t o pay com

pens at i on s hal l be exc l us i ve a n d in p lac e o f a ll o th e r lia b ili ty o f su c h e m p lo y e r to th e e m p loy ee . . . . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -3-9 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). H o w ev er, b a se d u p o n th e sta tu to ry re q u ire m e n t th a t th e “ in ju ry ” b e “ a c c id e n tal” to b e c o m p e n sa b le
u n d e r th e A c t, s ee M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 71- 3- 3( b) , 71- 3- 7, t hi s C our thas f ound t hat
s om e i nt ent i onal t or t s ar e out s i de t he sc ope of the exc l us i vi t y pr ovi s i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -9 . M is s . C o d e A n n . § § 7 1 -3 -3 (b ), 7 1 -3 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ). See R oyal O il Co. v. W e lls , 500 So. 2d 439, 442 ( M i s s . 1986) ( “the [ A ct ] doe s notba ra n e m pl oyee f r om pur s ui ng
a comm on l aw r emedy agai ns thi s empl oyerf oran i nj ury caus ed by hi s empl oyer ’ s w i l f ul
a n d m a licio u s a c t”) ; Mil ler , 444 So. 2d at371 (“ w her e an i njury i s caus ed by t he w i l l f ulact of an em pl oyee act i ng i n the cour s e and scope of

his em pl oym ent

and i n t he f

ur ther ance of his em ployer’s busi ness , the [A ct ] i s nott he exc l us i ve r em edy avai l abl e t o the i nj ur ed party”) ( emphasi s added)
. T hi s l i m i t at i on on t he A ct ’ s excl us i vi t y “r ef l ect s t he pu bli c p ol i cy that
cert ai n cour s es of

conduct( i nt ent i onal t or t s ) ar e s o s hocki ngl y outr ageous and beyond the bo un ds of ci vil i zed con du ctthat t he person res po nsi ble shou l d no tbe r ew arded w i t h tort im m u n ity .” B ra d le y & T h o m p s o n , Mis s is s i ppi W orker s ’C om pens at i on at§ 11: 8. ¶7. I n P eas terv. D avid N ew D r il ling C o. , 6 4 2 S o . 2 d 3 4 4 (M iss
. 1 9 9 4 ), th is C o u rt h e ld t hat“[ a] m er e w i l l f

ul and mal i ci ous actr emai ns i nsuff i ci entt o gi ve r i s e t o t he exc ept i on undert he A ct . ” Id . a t 3 4 8
. See al s o B lailock v. O ’

B annon , 79 5 S o. 2d 53 3, 53 5 (M i ss. 2001) ( “[ r ] eckl es s orgr os s l y negl i gentconducti s no tenough t o r emove a cl ai m f r om t he

### Acc ording to J ohn T. Gordon , a “Te chni ca l Dire ct or Che mi st ” r es ponsiblefor 4 

### cr eating theMSDS for

Mid- South, “[ t] he purp ose of an MSDS s hee t i s t o inf orm worke rs of h azardo us ch emicals in th e wo rkp lace.” 7 excl us i vi t y of

t he A ct . ”)
. T he empl oyee a l s o m us tes t abl i s h t hatthe egr egi ous actw as
acc om pani ed by an “ actual i nt entt o i nj ur e” i n orde rt o exceptt he A ct ’ s gra ntof e xcl us i vi ty. See id .; P eas ter , 642 So. 2d at348- 50; G r i f f in v. F utor ian C or

p. , 533 So
. 2d 46 1, 46 4 (M i ss. 1 9 8 8 ). T h u s, M iss iss ip p i is in c o n c u rre n c e w ith a n o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rity o f s ta te s in
re q u ir in g a n “ a c tu a l in te n t to in ju re ” th e e m p lo y e e . See 6 A rt h u r L a rs o n , L arson’s W orkers’ C om pens at i on Law § 1 0 3
. 0 1 n n . 4 -6, § 1 0 3
. 0 4 [1] (20 0 8 ). ¶8
. H av ing set forth the law in ex ist en ce at the ti m e the su b ject ev en ts u n fold ed , w e turn t o t he s peci f

i c f act s devel oped and s t i pul at ed i n t hi s cas e. FACTS ¶9
. F ran k li n C o rpo rati o n is a furn itu re m an u fac turer loca ted in H o u ston , M issi ssipp i. In Jan u ary 1 9 9 9 , G eo rge P ark er, an em p loy ee o f M id-S o u th A d h esiv es, Inc
. (“M id-S o u th”),
m ade a pr es ent at i on t o Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on r egar di ng M i d- Sout h’ s SoftS eam A dhes i ve (“ S o ft S e a m ” ) p ro d u c t. D u rin g th e p re se n tatio n , P a rk e r p ro v id e d F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n w ith
a M a y 2 2 , 1 9 9 8 , “ M a t e r i a l S a f e t y Da t a S h e e t ” ( “ M S DS” ) a n d wa r n i n g l a b e l f o rS o f tS e a m. 4 T he M SD S di s cl os ed t hatS of tS eam cont ai ned a ne ur ot oxi n know n as pr opyl br om i de ( “1- B P”) a nd i ncl uded a “[ m ] anuf actur er ’ s r ecomm ended expos ur e l i m i t ” of no m or e t han 100 par t s perm i l l i on (“ppm ”)
. U nder“Sect i on V I - H eal t h H aza r d D at a, ” the M SD S f ur ther decl ar ed t hatthe pr oductw as a n “ [ i ] rr i t antt o uppe rr es pi r at ory tr act . Sym pt om s m ay i ncl ude coughi ng, heada che, naus ea, di zzi nes s , w heez i ng, l aryngi t i s , s hor t nes s of br eath andPar kerdi s cus s ed vent i l at i on w i t h D on L i vi ngs t on, vi ce- pr es i dentand di r ect orof 5 p u rc h a s in g a t F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n , w h o re p lie d “ it w a s g o in g to b e a w fu lly e x p e n s iv e .” 

### Livingst on deni ed this stateme nt and te stif ie d that “ Par

ker neve r t old m e that

it nee ded ventilation .” 8 v o m itin g . T h e s e s h o rt te rm a c u te [e ]ff e c ts o f e x p o s u re a re n o tic e d a b o v e 1 5 0 to 2 5 0 p p m .” 

### Regarding symp toms of e xposure t o theskin, the MSDS reve al ed a ri sk of “[ i] rrit ation, def atting of s kin, and de rm atitis .”Further more, “[ p] rol on ged exp osure t o [1- B P ] can ca use adver s e ef

f ect s t o t he l i ver , ki dney, centr al nervous sys t em and r es pi r at ory s ys t em. ” “Sec t i on V II - Precaut i on s f

or Safe H and l i ng and U se” i ncluded , “W arni n g! V apo rs harm ful ! U se onl y w i t h adequa t e vent i l at i on! ” “Sec t i on V I I I - C ont r ol M eas ur es ” pr ovi ded: [ a] bove P E L / T L V [ “perm i s s i bl e expos ur e l i m i t/ t hr es hol d l i m i tval ue”] , an a pp r ov e d o r ga ni c vapo rtyp e r e s pi r at ori s acc ept abl e. A ppr oved s el f
- cont ai ned br eathing appar atus orai rl i ne r es pi r at orw i t h f ul l f ace pi ece , i s r equi r ed f

or vap or conc entr at i on s abov e 10 00 pp m and forspi l l s and em ergencies
.

. . . . D o notus e i n conf

i ned s pace . O pen door s and/ orw i ndow s. U s e vent i l at i on t o m ai nt ai n em pl oyee expos ur e l evel s bel ow t he manuf actur er s r ecomm ended e x p o su re lim it.

. . . . A vo i d co ntactw i t h skin and avo i d b reathing vap ors. 

### By June30, 1999, and l at er , on July 31, 2002, the PEL/TLV in the MSDS f or Sof t Se am was re duce d to “ 100 ppm. ” A s s t i pul at ed by the part i es , Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on:
w as aw ar e of

t he cont ent s of

the M SD S and w arni ng l abel and the l anguage r el at i ng t o ve nt i l at i on, [ ] r es pi r at ory, s ki n a nd e ye pr ot ect i on r equi r ement s f or 5 us e of [ Sof tSeam] as w el l as the pot ent i al harm f ul ef f ect s t o hum ans f

or pr ol onged, unpr ot ect ed exposur e t o [ 1- B P] atl evel s thatexce eded the app l i cable expo sure l evels
.

### The bui lding did have a downdra ft

sys te m whi ch exhau sted air outs idethebooths 6 

### in whichglu e-line emp loy ees wo rked , alon g w ith ro of fan s. Linda Bean, a glue -l ineem

ploye e in 1999, t es ti fi ed that anothe r glue- line e mpl oyee 7 

### had dire ctly c onfronte d Has se llFranklin, the pre si dent , CEO, and princ ipa l s har ehol der of Franklin Corporation, in theold bui lding about thenee d for

ventil ation. She f

urther te stif ie d that F rank lin h ad resp on dedthat h e was n ot g oin g to spendanymore mo neyas theywo uld be m oving into t

he ne w buil ding s oon. Acco rdin g to Frank C asteel, an electricianin th e mainten ance d epartment at F rank lin 8 

### Co rpo ration , John L yles, th e vice-p resident of manufacturing at FranklinCo rpo rationat all re le vant time s, ins tr

uctedh im n ot to r

un el ec tric it

y to t he downdraf

t s yst em in t he ne w buil ding. 9 ¶10. T he par t i es st i pu l at ed t hatF r ankl i n C orpor at i on had purc has ed and use d S of tSeam “on i t s gl ue l i ne i n t he pr oduct i on and manuf actur e of f urni t ure[ , ] ” begi nni ng i n 1999. A c c o rd in g to L iving ston , S o ftS ea m p ro v ided a sig n if ican t cos t sav ing s to F ran k li n C o rp o ra tio n , as th e g lu e lin e w a s re d u c e d fr o m th re e s h ifts to o n e s h ift. H o w e v e r, F ra n k lin C orpor at i on deci ded nott o i ns t al l m echa ni cal vent i l at i on exhaus t s out s i de the bui l di ng on t he gl ue l i ne. 6 7 ¶11. I n S ept ember20 00 , F rankl i n C orpor at i on m oved i t s pol y depar t m ent , i ncl udi ng t he gl ue l i ne, i nt o a new , 90, 000- s quar e- f ootbui l di ng. A l t hough t he f ac i l i ty h a d a i rc ondi t i oni ng,
no m echa ni cal vent i l at i on w as i nst al l ed exhaus t i ng out s i de the bui l di ng. O n February 7, 8 2 0 0 1 , F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n tem p o ra rily c e a se d p u rc h a sin g S o ft S e a m d u e to a c h a n g e in its pr oduct i on m ethods
. O n A pr i l 10, 2001, an “I ndus t r i al H ygi ene Eval uat i on” w as per f or m ed by i nd ust ri al hy gieni stK evin C
. H ou sm an o n b ehalf o f F rankli n C orporat i on ’s w orkers ’ compensa t i on i ns ur er , L i ber t y M utual Ins ur ance C om pany, addr es s i ng “noi s e r educt i on and hear i ng pr ot ect i on, w ood dus texpos ur e, and expos ur e t o or gani c vapor s i ncl udi ng butnot

### Spec if ic al ly, Housm an m ea sured 28 ppm over 161 minute s and 110 ppm over 216 9 

### minutes. Othe r pe rtine nt rec omm endati ons byHousman inc lude d theim ple me ntati on of a 10 

### re spirator y prot ec ti on program , the inst al lation of a che mi ca l revi ew proce ss re garding MSDSs, fut

ureair monit oring, and inf

orm ing glue -l ineempl oyee s of thepre se nt e xposure levels. Sh empert m ai nt ai ned t hatpr i ort o J ul y 31, 2002, the M SD S f orSof tSeam provi ded 11 t hatt he “[ m ] anuf

actur er ’ s r ecomm ended e xpos ur e l i m i t ” w as 1 00 ppm , w hi ch w as gr eat er th a n the 7 5 p p m ti m e-w eigh ted a v era g e in H o u sm an ’s rep o rt . O n that b asis, an d d esp ite H ous m an’ s r ef

er ence t o 10- 25 ppm as t he “manuf actur er ’ s r ecomm ended w or kp l ace expos ur e l i m i t , ” Fra nkl i n C orpor at i on consc i ous l y chose nott o i nf or m gl ue- l i ne empl oyees o f th e e x p o su re ris k s a ss o c iate d w ith 1 -B P o r to im p lem e n t th e re c o m m e n d a tio n s re late d to 1 -B P in c lu d e d in H o u sm a n ’s r e p o rt. 

### 10 lim it ed t o [ 1 -B P ] on th e g lue li n e.” T h e M ay 8, 2 0 0 1 , repo rti ssu ed by H o u sm an n o tab ly fo u n d th a t: [ m ] os texpos ur es w er e ei t herbel ow ourl ab’ s qua nt i f i abl e l i m i t s a nd/ orbel ow th e c o r r e s p o n d in g T L V s , e x c e p t f o r M s . [L in d a ] B e a n ’s e x p o s u re to [1 -B P ]. H er8- hrT W A [ “t i m e- w ei gh t ed ave r age” ] expos ur e w as cal cul at ed t o be 75 p p m .[ ] T

his par t i cularchem i cal has a m anuf

actur er ’s r ecom m ended 9 w orkplace expos ur e l i m i tof 10 t o 25 ppm
. T

hu s, sub s t i t ut i on of

this gl ui ng agent cur r ent l

y i n use a tthe P ol

yf oam P l antis s tr ongl

y enc our aged. V e n tila tio n o

f th is p ro c e ss sh o u ld

b e c o n sid e re d

a se c o n da ry c o n tro l a n d is al s o r ecom m ended .[ ] 10 ( E m phas i s added. ) Scot tShem per t , t he sa f ety di r ect oratF r ankl i n C orpor at i on atal l r el evant t i m es , w r ot e a not e on hi s copy of H ous m an’ s r eportpr ovi di ng “cont act ed [ L i vi ngs t on] 5- 16- 0 1 [, ] said h e w o u ld l o o k i n to i t. ” N o glu e-li n e em p loy ee s at F ran k li n C o rpo ratio n w ere
n o ti fi ed o f th e re su lt s rep o rt ed o r th e re co m m en d ati o n s p rov ided in H o u sm an ’s rep o rt
c o n c e rn in g 1 -B P . N o n e o f th e v e n til a tio n o r re sp ira to ry -p ro tec tio n re c o m m e n d a tio n s in H ous m an’s r epo rtw er e i m pl ement ed by Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on. O n J anuary 30, 2002, 11 Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on r es um ed pur chas i ng Sof tS eam f r om M i d- Sout h. O n J ul y 31, 2002, t he

### Ho wev er, accord ing to G ord on , the “E PAdo es no t regu late the w orkplace.” 12 

### Shem pert a dded that

“the f ac t t hat it was a propose d ac cepta

bleexpos urelimi t di d not put it in pl ac e, in my opini on as thesa fe ty dire ct or [ at Frankl in Cor porati on] .”On theothe r hand, theexpe rt

te stim ony of oc cupati onaltoxi col ogis t Gaku Ic hihara , M. D., was that t he EPA re gulate s 1- BP “becau se . . . [1- BP] is thealte rnative t o thefr eon or othe r oz onedep leting solv ents.” T he part i es s t i pul at ed thatt he Pl ai nt i f f s ’ ent i r e exposur e t o 1- B P occurr ed at 13 F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n , w h ile in th e c o u rse a n d sc o p e o f th e ir e m p lo y m e n t. 

### Th e bo othin whichTed fordwo rkedwas slightlylarger and didnot h ave a p lastic 14 

### cove r ove r the t op. By H aire’s d esc ripti on, “ mos t of thevapor s woul d com e right bac k int o you. I t 15 

### didn’t h ave n owhere to go .” 11 M S D S fo r S o ft S e a m w a s re v ise d to in c lu d e a n “ E P A p ro p o se d a c c e p tab le e x p o su re lim it” of 25 pp m r e ga r di ng 1- BP. 12 ¶1 2
. R eg ard ing the P lai n ti ffs, their em p loy m en t on the g lue li n e b eg an as fo ll o w s: T ed ford -- A p ri l 12 , 1 9 9 9 ; H aire -- S ep tem b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 ; M ixo n -- S ep tem b er 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 ; and S m ith -- O ct ober22, 2003. T hei rw ages var i ed betw een e i ghtand ni ne dol l ar s perhour
. O n t he gl ue l i ne, t he Pl ai nt i f

f s w oul d us e “a pr es s ur i zed s pr ay s ys t em t o appl y [ Sof tS eam] t o f

oam used i n t he m anuf

actur e of furni tur e pr oduced and s ol d by Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on. ” In Sept ember 13 2003, new w ooden s pr ay booths f ort he gl ue- l i ne empl oyees w er e cons t ruct ed. T he new boot hs w er e dr aped i n pl as t i c and w er e pr i m ar i l y oc cupi ed by Pl ai nt i f f s Sm i t h, M i xon, and H ai r e. A ccor di ng t o gl ue- l i ne empl oyee V i cki V eaz ey:

14
w h e n y o u w a s in th o se b o o th s, . . . the sc e n t w a s to o stro n g b e c a u se it co u ld n o t es c a p e . N a tu ra lly , if y o u h a d h a d v e n til a tio n o r e v e n th e to p w a s o p e n , it w o u ld h a v e b e e n b e tter . . . , b u t at th e tim e th e . . . b o o th s h a d th e little p las tic to p s a c ro s s th e to p o f t h e m .[ ] 15

### For inst anc e, a cc ording to Ve az ey, when s he infor me d her supe rvi sor

that t he glue 16 

### was cau singher h eadach es, she w as simplytoldto tak e some T ylen ol. Acc ording to Smit

h, in re spons e to her

reque st for ventil ation, Clem ent s “l ooked at 17 

### thece il ing, and hesaid, the re ’s no way t o put ve nti lati on in he re . Hes ai d that
. . . it was too expe nsi ve and the y coul dn’t af ford it .”Hairete stif

ie d that Cl em ent s t old her that “hehad alreadyaskedan d th ey to ld [h im] that there w as no mon ey ap pro priatedfor it at th e time.” 12 Shem pertdi d notconsi dert he i ns t al l at i on of thes e new boot hs t o be a m anuf actur i ng change , and thus di d notr eques tupdat ed ai rt es t i ng on t he gl ue l i ne. ¶ 1 3
. T h ro u g h o u t th e P la in tiffs ’ e m p lo y m e n t, n u m e ro u s g lu e -lin e e m p lo y e e s tes tified to
ma k i n g r e p e a t e d c o mp l a i n t s t o s u p e r v i s o r s a n d u p p e rma n a g e me n ta b o u tth e i l l s y mp t o ms t hey w er e expe r i enci ng, t he nee d f or ven t i l at i on, and the nee d f orpr ot ect i ve gea r . T he adver s e s ym pt om s exper i ence d by gl ue- l i ne empl oyees f r equent l y w er e exa cerbat ed w hen op erat i ng i n the new bo oths. ¶14. T he Pl ai nt i f

f s t es t i f i ed thatt hei rcom pl ai nt s rout i nel y w er e di s m i s s ed ori gnor ed by
s upervi s or s and upperm anage m ent . T edf or d t es t i f i ed t hatw hen s he i ni t i al l y compl ai ned 16 to Ja m e s R . C lar k , the su p e rin ten d e n t o f th e p o ly d e p a rtm e n t fro m J a n u a ry 1 9 9 9 u n til S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 3 , “ h e to ld m e th a t it w a s n ’t th e g lu e . T h e y h a d b e e n u s in g it f o r y e a rs .” L a ter , C lar k in fo rm e d T e d fo rd th a t F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n w a s n o t “g o in g to v e n til a te it b e c a u se o f th e m o n e y .” M ix o n tes tified th a t Je ff C lem e n ts, th e su p e rin ten d e n t o f th e p o ly d ep artm en t beg inn ing in S ep tem b er 2 0 0 3 , told h er th a t v en ti lat ion “w as to o ex p en sive
. It
w o u ld p ro b a b ly n e v e r h a p p e n .” W h e n T e d fo rd c o m p la in e d to J im m y P u m p h re y , a 17
s up e r i nt e nd e nti n the po l y d e pa r t ment , “ [ h] e j us tpl a ye d i tof f
. [ H e s a i d] [ t ] he r e ’ s no t hi ngM i xon and gl ue- l i ne empl oyees J acki e D avi ds on a nd Lynn B yar s t es t i f i ed t o s i m i l ar 18 res po nses f

rom P um ph rey. A ccordi ng t o S m i t h, P um ph rey w ou l d occasi on al l y “laugh atus, s ayi ng y’al l are hi gh. I bel i eve thatgl ue has gone t o y’ al l ’ s head ors om ethi ng. ” C as t eel hear d Pum phr ey t el l one em pl oyee, “[ e] i t herdo t he j ob orgo hom e. ” Sm i t h f ur t hert es t i f

i ed t hatPum phr ey’ s re s pons e t o herre ques tforvent i l at i on w as “[ t ] hatt her e w i l l neverbe, and [h e ] w a lk [e d ] a w a y .” 

### Th is C ourt n otes that Clarkd id no t testifyat trial. His testimony, deriv ed from h is 19 

### Novem ber 2, 2004, af

fi davi t and Novem

ber 2, 2005, deposi ti on, wa s, howeve r, cons ide re d bythe circu it court in rulin g onFrank lin Co rpo ration ’s “Mo tionfor S ummaryJud gment.” Th is Co urt co nsid ers Clark ’s testimony o nlyfo r p urp oses of assessin g th at rulin g. See ¶ 33 infra
. Livingst on deni ed having knowledgeof any empl oyeecompl aints prior to Januar y 20 

### or February 2004. Ji m Ti dwel l, a super

vis or at Frankl in Corporation in 1999 and 2000, t es ti fi ed that 21 

### he pe rs onal ly ha d obse rve d Franklin dis cus s ve nti lati on and then r ef useit s inst al lati on. 13 w r ong w i t h you. G o on back in yourbooth and go t o w or k. ” C as t eel t es t i f i ed thatw hen 18 one empl oyee c om pl ai ned t o vi ce- pr es i dentL yl es t hatt he gl ue w as “bur ni ng ourhands and
m a k in g u s d iz z y , . . . h e ju s t s m ile d a n d w a lk e d o ff.” ¶15. A ccor di ng t o C l ark: 19 I had compl ai ned t o [ L i vi ngs t on] a boutt he f um es and pr obl ems bei ng r epor t ed by t he w orker s i n t he gl ue l i ne. [ ] H e s t at ed att hatt i m e thathe knew t hat 20 Fr ankl i n [ C orpor at i on] neede d t o i ns t al l a vent i l at i on s ys t em on t he gl ue l i ne, b u t th a t h e d id n ’t b e liev e th a t H a s s e ll F ra n k lin h a d d e c id e d to “ let m e p u t a h o le in th e c e ilin g ” to in s ta ll s u c h a v e n tila tio n s y s te m .[ ] 21 W h e n Cl a r k i n f

o r me d Ly l e s o f

f u r t h e rc o mp l a i n t s b y g l u e - l i n e e mp l o y e e s , Ly l e s “ t o l d [ h i m] th a t [h e ] w a s n o t do in g a g o o d en o u g h job o f co n v in c in g the P lain tiffs th a t th e ir c o m p lain ts
w er e ‘ al l i n t hei rheads ’ and thatI had t o be a ‘ bet t ers al es m an’ t o convi nce the Pl ai nt i f f s t hat

### By contra st , Lyl es as se rt ed that he did not becom e aware of com plaint s by glue- line 22 

### em ploye es unti l m id- Febr

uar y 2004. Franklin deni ed s tating that hewould not in stall v enti lati on bec aus e i t wa s t oo 23 

### expe nsi ve, and t estifi ed that he wa s unawar e of

any ve nti lati on com

plaint s prior

to 2004. Acc ording to Frankl in, when hele ar ned of th e proble m, “weins ta ll ed the ve nti lati on system.” Clark s tate d that a

“ gra de two job”m eans “ thelowe st le velin t he hous e, anybody 24 

### can d o it.” Acc ording to Shempert , howe ver , whitepaper dust mask s manufa ct ure d by 3M were 25 

### always avai la

blet o glue- line em

ploye es . On thi s subj ec t, Cl em ent s te stif ie d that glue -l ine emplo yee N orma P ettitw as the o nlyemplo yee fro m wh om h e hadheardcomp laints. Ther ea ft er , Cl em ent s s tate d that hegaveher a f ac e m as k. 14 th e ir c o m p lain ts w e re n o t re a l.” C lar k a d d iti o n a lly p ro v id e d th a t in a m e e tin g w ith F ra n k lin 22
a n d Ly l e s , F r a n k l i n i n f

o r me d h i m: t hathe “w as no tg oi ng t o t hr ow m oney att hi s pr obl em. ” H e s ai d thatno vent i l at i on s ys t em w oul d be i ns t al l ed as t he company w as notgoi ng t o s pend m oney on a gl ue l i ne vent i l at i on s ys t em foran adhe s i ve thatw as pr obabl y not goi ng t o be al l ow ed much l ongeranyw ay, and thati tw oul d be a w ast e of m o n e y . . . r e g a rd le s s o f a n y c o m p la in ts fr o m th e w o rk e rs o n th e g lu e lin e .[ ] 23 M o re o v e r, C lar k tes tified th a t F ra n k lin a n d L y le s h a d m a in tain e d th a t “w e ’re n o t g o in g to
s uck t he ai r - condi t i oni ng outt hr ough hol es i n the ce i l i ng. ” A ccor di ng t o C l ark, Fr ankl i n had
r ef err ed t o gl ue- l i ne em pl oyees as per f or m i ng a “gr ade tw o j ob” and t hat“i f t hey don’ tl i ke 24 i t. . . t hey ca n go t o w or k s om ew her e el s e. ” Furt her m or e, C l ark t es t i f i ed thatL yl es had
s t at ed “ther e ar e peopl e l i ned up outther e f orj obs ; i f

they s t artdr oppi ng l i ke f l i es , or
s o m e th in g in th a t o rd e r, w e c a n re p la c e th e m to d a y . . . .” ¶1 6
. T h e P lai n ti ffs furthe r assert that th ey w ere n o t pro v ided w ith ad eq u ate p rotec ti v e g ea r. Sm i t h t es t i f

i ed thats he as ked Pum phr ey f orr es pi r at ory m as ks “[ a] tl eas tonce a w eek[ , ] ” but t hat“[ t ] hey j us tal w ays sa i d t hey w oul d geti t , and i tnevercame. ” Fol l ow i ng a s pi l l of 25

### An updat ed MSDS s hee t wa s att ac hed t o thegluedrum of e ver y s hipm ent

of Sof t 26 

### Seam. C onver s el y, Pum phr ey t es t i f i ed thatw hen gl ue- l i ne empl oyees began t aki ng t he 27 M S D S s o ff

th e g lu e d ru m s , “ I s ta rt e d ta k in g th e m o ff a n d p u ttin g th e m in th e o ff ic e .” 

### 15 appr oxi m at el y 330 gal l ons of Sof tSeam i n Sept ember20 00 , C l ark t es t i f i ed thathe and Pum phr ey w er e “i ns t ruct ed by .
. . Lyl es t o c l ean up the s pi l l w i t h no ve nt i l at i on, pr ot ect i ve cl ot hi ng o rp r ot e c t i ve r e s pi r a t ory e qu i pmen t . ” W he n Cl a r k e xp e r i e nc e d di z z i ne s s and
naus ea, he cl ai m s t hatL yl es “t ol d m e t o go out s i de and t ake a br eak, butdo w hat everi tt ook to g e t it c le a n e d u p .” ¶1 7. Fol l ow i ng c ompl a i nt s of Ted f or d, a f t e r he r r e vi e w of t he M SD S, Cl a r k s t a t ed t hat L yl es di r ect ed Pum phr ey “t o keep al l i nf or m at i on aw ay f

r om em pl oyees . . . . In a ccor dance wi t h t h e s e i n s t ru c t i o n s , a l l M S DS[ s ] we r e t h e r e a f t e rr e mo v e d f

r o m th e [ S o f

tS e a m]
c on t a i ne r s by [ Pumph r e y]
. . . . ” Rel a t e dl y, nu mer ou s empl oy e e s t e s t i f i e d tha tthe M SD Ss 26
w ere rem o v ed fro m the g lue d rum s. In o n e ins tanc e, w h en S m ith ask ed P u m p h rey w h ere 27 th e M S D S w a s , “ h e s a id , th e re ’s n o t o n e .” ¶1 8. O n J a nu a r y 27, 20 04 , Smi t h w a s pl a c e d on m e di c a l l e a ve by Fr a nk l i n Corpor at i on, and s ubs equent l y w as admi t t ed t o the hos pi t al on J anuary 29, 2004. Sm i t h r eport ed
s ym pt om s t o her tr eat i ng phys i ci an, D r . K evi n M er i gi an, of “numbness and t i ngl i ng f r om
w ai stt o toes, nervou s - - s hak i n[g] , head ache, di zzi ness, nau sea, vo m i t i ng -- cr am ping i n toes, fe e t an d
. . . ca lf.” O n F e b ru a ry 9 , 2 0 0 4 , H a ire w a s p lac e d o n m e d ica l lea v e b y F ra n k lin C orpor at i on, and then w as admi t t ed t o t he hos pi t al on February 1 2, 2 004. H ai r e s t at ed
s y mp t o ms t o Dr
. M e r i g i a n o f “ s t i n g i n g i n f

e e ta n d n u mb n e s s f

r o m w a i s tt o my f

e e t . ” On February 14, 2004, M i xon w as admi t t ed t o the hos pi t al af t erbei ng pl ace d on m edi cal l eave

### OnApril 12 , 2 00 4, Mix onreturnedto F rank lin Co rpo rationan d beg an wo rkin g in 28 

### the b ackfillin g d epartment, wh ere she remain ed emp loy ed at th e time of trial. Nearly threeyears late r, on Marc h 17, 2007, Dr. S.H. Subramony, a board- ce rtif ie d 29 

### neurolo gist, ex amine dthe P laintiffs an d fo un d p ermanent residu al neurolo gical d eficits ca using continue d mot or di ff ic ultie s in Tedf

ord and “s igni fi cant di sa bil it y” in H aireand Smi th. At tria l, Dr. Merigi an opined, to a re as onabl e de gre e of

me dic alce rt ainty, that t

he chance s of

Sm it h’s c ondition im

proving we re“ quit e poor”and that Haire’ s and Tedf ord’ s con ditio ns “w ill no t impro ve[.]” 16 by Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on t hats ame day. M i xon r epor t ed s ym pt om s t o D r . M er i gi an of “numbness i n but t , l ow erback, l egs , and f eet ; f eel s l i ke they are a s l eep a nd t i ngl i ng;
vom i t i ng; heada ches ; di zzi nes s ; t r oubl e br eathi ng. ” O n A pr i l 21, 2004, T edf or d w as pl ace d 28
o n m e d ica l lea v e b y F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n , an d th e re a fte r re c eive d m ed ical trea tm en t on A p ril 22, 2004. T edf

or d exper i ence d s ym pt om s of l eg numbness , heavi nes s i n herl ow er extr emi t i es , and di f

f i cul t y w al ki ng. 29 ¶19. O n February 16, 2004, Fr ankl i n Corpor at i on pl ace d i t s f i nal or derf

orSof tSea m . T hat
s ame day, L i vi ngs t on i nf or m ed Par kert hatseve r al gl ue- l i ne empl oyees ( s peci f i cal l y, Sm i th, Ha i r e , a n d M i x o n ) h a d b e e n h o s p i t a l i z e d , a n d th a tf u r t h e ra i rt e s t i n g wa s n e c e s s a r y . On F e b ru a ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , P a rk e r c o n d u c ted a n a ir-sa m p lin g tes t o n th e g lu e li n e a t F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n . 

### This was only t he s ec ond air t es t per for

me d on theglueline in thefi ve ye ar s since F rank lin C orp oratio n h ad b egun u singSo ft S eam. A ccor di ng t o T edf or d, gl ue- l i ne oper at i ons w er e s l ow t hatday. Par ker ’ s s ubs equentlet t ert o Shem per tand Li vi ngs t on p ro v id e d th a t “ [v ]en tin g th e e x h a u st th ro u g h th e ro o f w ith m e c h a n ica l a ir a ss iste d m o to rs is
re q u ire d to m e e t the 2 5 PPM stan da rd

in the w o rk a rea . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed
. ) O n F eb rua ry 23, 2004, an i ndus t r i al hygi eni s tf r om t he O ccupa t i onal Saf ety and H eal t h A dm i ni s t r at i on ( O SH A ) a r r i ved unannounce d a nd t es t ed t he ai rqua l i t y on t he gl ue l i ne. G l ue- l i ne

### At the tim e of tria l, OSHA had not

yet se t e xposure l im it s f

or 1- BP. Howe ver , 30 

### ac cording t o Gordon, theAme ri can Conf er enc e of Gover

nme nta l Indus tria l Hygi eni st s s et thethres hold va luelimi t f or e xposure t o 1-BP at 10 ppm in June 2004. O nAp ril 2 7, 2 00 4, O SH A issu ed a “C itationandNo tificationof P enalty ” to 31 

### Franklin Corporation. For the “ se ri ous”viol ation of e xce ss iveexpos ureof glue- line em ploye es t o 1- BP, OSHA propose d a $3, 500 pe nalty. For the“ se ri ous”vi olation o f the abs e nc e of em

pl oy e e “ tr a i ningonthehaz ar ds onthe[ S] of t [ S] e ama dh e s i ve [ , ] ” OS HA propos ed a

$ 1,125 pe nalty. On May 19, 2004, an “Infor ma l Se ttle me nt Agree me nt”was re ac hed be twe en Frankl in Cor porati on and OSHA whe reby Franklin Corporation “ agr ee [d] to c orr ec t t

he vi olati ons”and OSHA ame nded the pe nalti es to $2, 000 and $500, re spe ctive ly. 17 em p loy ee s testi fi ed that g lue-li n e o p era ti o n s w ere typ ica l th a t day
. T h e ins p ec ti o n rep o rt f r om O SH A , i s s ued A pr i l 26, 2004, f ound t i m e- w ei ght ed aver ages of 1- B P of 205 and 219 ppm . A ccor di ng t o t he r epor t , 219 ppm “is 9 t i m es the [ M SD S] r ecomm ended l evel of 25 [p p m ] a n d 4 3 ti m e s th e ta rg e t l im it o f 5 [p p m ] re c o m m e n d e d b y O S H A T e c h n ic a l C e n te r.” 30 T he r epor tnot ed the absen ce of ve nt i l at i on, r es pi r at ory pr ot ect i on f orempl oyees , or
s uf f i ci entai rt es t i ng per f

or m ed by Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on. 31 ¶20. O n February 27, 2004, F r ankl i n C orpor at i on began pur chas i ng a new gl ue cont ai ni ng
ace t one f r om M i d- Sout h. O n M ar ch 10, 2004, new vent i l at i on boot hs w er e i ns t al l ed on the gl ue l i ne atFr ankl i n C orpor at i on and w er e f ul l y oper abl e. Fabr i cat i on and i ns t al l at i on of t he
new v e nt i l a t i on b oo t hs b y K l i ne Hea t i ng a nd Ai rc os t$ 11 , 16 5. Fol l owi ng i ns t a l l at i on of vent i l at i on, gl ue- l i ne empl oyees w er e i ns t ruct ed on the natur e and us e of the ac et one gl ue. ¶21
. F rom Feb ruary 16 , 200 4, unti l M arch 10, 200 4, Frankli n C orporat i on conti nu ed to use Sof tSe a m w i t ho utpr ov i di ng a dd i t i on a l ve nt i l a t i on orr e s pi r a t ory p r ot e c t i on t o g l ue- l i ne empl oyees , and w i t houti nf or m i ng t hem of

t he over expos ur e r epor t ed by Parker
. A ccor di ng

### Acc ording t o Livingston, howe ver , the ultimatedec is ion on ve nti lati on would have 32 

### bee n ma de by Frankl in. On May 7, 2007, an “Order of Voluntary Di sm is sa l”was ent er ed by the c ircui t c ourt 33 

### as to “ al l of

thecl ai ms ple ad[ ed] by Plaintif fs , J am es R. Clark and Sandra Darl eneClark . . . again st all of th e Defen dants . . . .” Tommy T e df

ord, Ha rol d E
. Haire , J os hu a

Mi xo n, and

Sa nd ra Darle ne Cl ar

k cl ai me d 34 

### losses o f con sortium. 18 to S h e m p e rt, “[m ]y p o sit io n a s th e c o rp o ra te r e p re se n tativ e [ ] w o u ld b e th a t w e w o u ld 32 foll o w the O S H A reg u lat ion s p rov ide d to u s b y thes e M S D S , an d w e d id so
. ” S h em p ert
m a in tain e d th a t th e a b se n c e o f re c o m m e n d e d e x p o su re li m its b y O S H A w e ig h e d h e a v ily in th e d e c isio n n o t to v e n til a te. S h e m p e rt tes tified th a t: O S H A i s th e g o v ern ing bo d y ov er w h ich w o rke rs sho u ld be ab le t o co m e in and have a s af

e w or kpl ace . . . . T hey don’ thave a n expos ure l i m i t . T he m an u fac turer se ts 10 0 [p p m ] , so that’s w h at I w as g o ing o n as a sec o n d ary m eas ur e, butO SH A w oul d t ake pr ece dence overanythi ng el s e i n any of thes e. B y contr as t , i ndus t r i al hygi eni s tJ ohn Spencert es t i f i ed: I can’ tt hink of [ a plant ] t hat w as w orse[ , ] t o p u t . . . a g roup o f i nd i vidual s, i nt o an enc l os ed ar ea a nd s pr ay a s ol ventday i n and day outf orhour s upon hour s . . . w i t houtany vent i l at i on, w i t houtpr operr es pi r at ory pr ot ect i on i s not o n ly [a] vio lat ion o f a v ariety o f o cc u p ati o n al h ea lth stan d ard s; bu t i t’ s just, it ’s di f f i cul tf orm e t o expl ai n w hy someone w oul d do that , es peci al l y i n l i ghtof t he compl ai nt s t hatw er e comi ng f r om thos e i ndi vi dual s c onduct i ng thatw or k. Spenceropi ned, “i f

t hey had f

ol l ow ed [ H ous m an’ s ] r ecomm endat i ons and f ol l ow ed [ Par ker ’ s ] r ecomm endat i ons , t hey w oul d have l i kel y s i gni f i cant l y r educe d t hos e expos ur es
w h e re it w o u ld n ’t h a v e b e e n a h a rm fu l le v e l.” ¶ 2 2
. O n A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , a C o m p lain t w a s file d in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f C a lh o u n C o u n ty b y t h e Pl a i n t i f

f s , a l o n g wi t h Cl a r k , Sa n d r a Dar l e n e Cl a r k , To mmy Te d f o r d , Har o l d E. 33 H ai r e, and J os hua M i xon agai ns tFr ankl i n, L yl es , L i vi ngst on , C l ement s , Pum phr ey, and 34

### On May 7, 2007, the Plaintif fs a gre ed to dis mi ss wi th pre judi cethecl ai ms as se rt ed 35 

### again st th e in div idu al F rank lin Defen dants. Per th at agreement, “the in div idu al defen dants wil l e xec uteaff

idavit s, the for

m and c onte nt of

whic h havebee n agr ee d to by c ounse l f or the ind ividual d efen dants andcounsel fo r the p laintiffs.” T he affid avit o f each “F rank lin Def endant”provi ded: [a ] t a llre le vant

time s pl ea d [s ic ] in t

he Compl aint for

this ci vilac ti on, and at al l rel evant tim es of my em ployment with Franklin Corporation t o whic h I testified inmy d epo sit ion , all of myacts andomissio ns, inc luding my intentional

actsand omissi ons, if

any , were inthe co urse an d sco pe o f my em ploym ent with Franklin Corporati on as a manage me nt l eve l e mpl oyee , a s a m eans t o ac com

pli sh thepurpose s of my em ploym ent , and in f

urtheranc e of the bu siness of FranklinCorp oratio n. All of my actions ando mi ssio ns, inc luding my intentional

act s and omi ss ions, i f any , we reauthori ze d and/ or rati fi ed by Frankl in Cor

porati on. (Emp hasis ad ded .) The Se cond Am ende d Complaint , f il ed in thecirc uit

court on J anuary 26, 2007, 36 

### adde d Locke Barkl ey, Bankr uptc y Trus te e f

or Pa uline and Tommy Tedf

ord, and Se le ne Maddox, Bankr

uptc y Trus te e f

or J am es and Sandra Darl eneClark, as Plaintif fs . Ba se d upon theMay 7, 2007, “Order

of Voluntary Dis mi ss al ,”allcla im s of theClar ks, by and through Maddox, al so we redis mi ss ed. On May 25, 2007, the c ircui t c ourt ent er ed an “Agr eed O rder and Rul e 54(b) 37 

### Judgm ent of Di sm is sa l wi th Prej udic e a s t o Plaintif fs ’ Inte nti onal/Fraudul ent Mis repre se ntati on Claim s”aga ins t Frankl in Cor porati on and Mi d-South. On May 22, 2007, the c ircuit court e nte re d an “ Agre ed Order and Rul e 54(b) 38 

### Jud gment of Di sm is sa l wi th Prej udic e a s t o Plaintif fs ’ Ci vilConspira cy Cl ai ms ” a gainst Franklin Corporation and Mid- South. 19 J ohn D oes 1- 10 ( “Fr ankl i n D ef endant s ”) , Fr ankl i n C orporat i on, and M i d- Sout h. T he

35 36
caus es of act i on as s er t ed i n t he C om pl ai nti ncl uded: br eac h of w arr anty, negl i gence , and negl i gence pers e by M i d- Sout h; m i s r epr es ent at i on, i nt ent i onal m i s r epr es ent at i on, f r aud, 37 and ci vil con spi racy by M i d-So uth, F rankl i n C orporat i on , and t he F rankl i n D efendan t s; 38 bat t ery by Fr ankl i n C orporat i on and t he Fr ankl i n D ef endant s ; and i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s by M i d- Sout h, Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on, and the Fr ankl i n D ef endant s . T he

### 20

C om pl ai ntadded that“the ac t i ons of D ef endant s ar e so egr egi ous , w i l l f ul , w ant on and
m a lic io u s in n a tu re th a t p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a re re q u e s te d . . . .” ¶23. O n O ct ober21, 2004, Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on f i l ed a “M ot i on t o D i s m i s s , ” r el yi ng on the “ ex clus ive re m ed y ” p rov isi o n o f th e A ct, M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c ti o n 7 1 -3-9 (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ). A t th e h e a rin g the re o n , C irc u it Ju d g e A n d re w K . H o w o rth c o n c e d e d th a t “[t]h is is a to u g h o n e .” U lti m a tely , h o w e v e r, th e m o tio n w a s d e n ied a s “ th e [c]o u rt sp e c ifica lly f i nds t hatt he Pl ai nt i f

f s have a l l eged suff

i ci entf act s and ca us es of

act i on, w hi ch undert he
r el evantst and ard of

r evi ew , s at i s f

y t he i nt ent i onal t or texce pt i on t o t he appl i cat i on of [ the A c t] .” F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n su b se q u e n tly filed a “P e tit io n fo r In ter lo c u to ry A p p e a l an d to St ay Enfor cementof

C i r cui tC our tO r derPendi ng A ppeal ” r egar di ng the exc l us i vi t y of the A ct, w h ich th e c ir cu itco u rtg ran ted. T h is C o u rtinit ial ly g ran ted F ran k li n C o rpo rati o n ’s “Pet i t i on f

orI nt er l ocut or y A ppeal , ” butther eaf t erdi s m i s s ed i tas i m pr ovi dent l y gr ant ed. ¶ 2 4
. O n M a y 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n filed a “ M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t” in th e c irc u it co u rt, re itera tin g tha t th e P lain tiffs’ “ e x c lu siv e rem e d ies are p u rsu a n t t o th e [A c t]

. . . . ” A tt hathear i ng, t he ci r cui tj udge s t at ed:
w h ile I’m n o t aw a re o f a n y law o n th is, I th in k in ten t ca n b e lik e sc ien ter is in t he l aw . . . . W e know t hati n s ci entery ou k new ors houl d have know n; and I thi nk w i th i nt ent

you ei theri nt ended i toryou w er e pos s es s ed w i th s uf f i ci ent f act s w her e you c ould be de em ed to have i nt ended i teve n i f you di dn’ ti nt end the s peci f i c cons equenc es . . . . T hat’ s j ustkind of m y v i ew of the thorni ness of t hi s t hi ng. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) O n th a t b a sis , w h ile d e e m in g th e m a tter to b e “ v e ry c lo se ,” th e c irc u it jud g e d en ied th e m o ti o n , fi n d ing th ere “are ge n u ine issu es o f fact as to w h ethe r or n o t th ere
w as i ntentt o inj ure .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .)

### Ther ea ft er , a “Final Jud gme nt”was ent er ed by the c ircui t c ourt dis mi ss ing t

he 39 

### Plaintif fs ’ c laim s a gainst

Mid- South wi th prej udic e. The j ury awarde d no dam age s to Plaintif fs Tommy Tedf

ord, Harol d E. Ha ire, and 40 

### Joshua M ixo n o n th eir loss-o f-con sortium claims. 21 ¶25. Fol l ow i ng a t hr ee- w eek t r i al , t he j ury f ound i n f avor of t he Pl ai nt i f

f s on t he cl ai m s of ba t t ery andinten t i on al i nfl i ct i on of em oti on al distress agai ns tFr ankl i n C orpor at i on. T he “Fi nal J udgm ent ” r eci t ed that“[ t ] he j ury found i n f avorof [ M i d- Sout h] on t he cl ai m of
n e g lig e n c e a ss e rte d a g a in st it b y P lain tiffs.” A ll l iab ility w a s a ttribu ted to F ra n k lin 39 C orpor at i on, and compens at or y damages w er e as s es s ed, as f ol l ow s : M i xon - - $75, 000; T edf or d -
- $800, 000; Sm i t h -
- $250, 000; H ai r e - - $800, 000. 40 ¶26. T he i s s ue of

puni t i ve damages w as t hen pr es ent ed t o the j ury, w hi ch r eturned a ver di ct of $7, 500, 000 f

ort he Pl ai nt i f

f s agai ns tFr ankl i n Corpor at i on. T he “Fi nal J udgm ent ” of the
c irc u it co u rt, “ u p o n d u e co n sid e ra tio n o f th e n e t w o rth an d fin a n c ial c o n d iti o n ” o f F ra n k lin C orpor at i on atthe t i m e the com pl ai ntw as f

i l ed , concl uded thatt he pr operamount of puni t i ve damages t o be aw ar ded w as $1, 836, 213, pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 1 -65 (3)(a) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶27. Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on s ubs equent l y f i l ed a “M ot i on f

orJ
. N
. O
. V
. , ori n t he A l t ernat i ve, f ora N ew T r i al ora R emi t t i t ur, ” and the Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a “ M ot i on t o R econs i derPuni t i ve D amages , t o A l t eror A m end Fi nal Judgment , forR el i ef fr om F i nal Judgment , or f orO ther R el i ef
. ” The Pl ai nt i f

f s s oughtamendm entof

the “Fi nal J udgm ent ”: by ei t he r : a ) a dj us t i ng a nd a mend i ng tha t. . . p un i t i ve d a mage s f i gu r e f r om $1, 836, 213 t o $5, 000, 000 t o com portand compl y w i t h M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 11- 1- 65 ( Supp. 2003) by app l i cat i on of t he s t atut ory cap t o the “ne t w orth” fi gu re of $61,543,082 for
. . . F rankl i n C orporat i on , w hich w as i t s “net w or th” atthe t i m e of

tr i al ; orb) amendi ng and adj us t i ng the puni t i ve damages

### 22

. . . f r om $1, 836, 213 t o t he $7, 500, 000 puni t i ve damages amount aw ar ded by t he ver di ctof

t he j ur y w i t houts t atut ory r educt i on i f M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 11- 1- 65( 3) ( a- c) ( Supp. 2003) i s f ound t o be voi d, unconst i t ut i onal and/ or i nappl i cabl e. (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) T h e re a fte r, th e c irc u it co u rt e n ter e d a n “ O rd e r G ra n tin g M o tio n to Rec on s i de rPu ni t i ve Damage s , t o A l t e ro rAm e nd Fi na l J ud gmen t , f orRel i e f f r om Fi nal Ju d g m e n t, or fo r O th e r R e lief,” fin d in g th a t: t he pr opernetw or t h of

[ Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on] t o be ut i l i zed i n t he appl i cat i on of t he l egi s l at i ve ca ps i s t he c u rr e n t n e t w o rth
. . . w h ich is $ 6 1 ,5 4 3 ,0 8 2 . T h is f i gur e w as t he netw or t h of [ Fr ankl i n Corpor at i on] f ort he 2006 f

i s cal year , and w as s ubs t ant i al l y the s ame atthe t i m e t he j ury r ender ed i t s ver di ctand atthe t i m e the courtconduct ed i t s hear i ng on t he D ef endant ’ s m ot i on t o r educe t he p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a w a rd
. . . . (E m p h asis ad d ed
. ) P u rsua n t to M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 11 -1-6 5 (3)(a-b ), th e c ir cu itco u rt
or der ed that“the puni t i ve damages aw ar ded by t he j ury . . . ar e t o be r educe d t o $5, 000, 000
a n d th a t th e F in a l J u d g m e n t d a te d M a y 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , b e a m e n d e d to re fl e c t th is a d ju s tm e n t.” T hats ame day, t he ci r cui tcour tent er ed an “ O r derD enyi ng Fr ankl i n [ C orpor at i on’ s ] M ot i on f orJ
. N
. O
. V
. , ori n t he A l t ernat i ve, f orN ew T r i al o r R em i t t i t ur . ” O n J ul y 30, 2007, t he

“ A m e n d e d F in a l Ju d g m e n t” w a s e n ter e d in fa v o r o f th e P la in tiffs a n d a g a in st F ra n k lin C orpor at i on i n t he tot al amount of $7, 475, 593. 59, w i t h pos t - j udgm enti nt er es tof

8. 25 per cent . Fr om t hatrul i ng, Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on fi l ed a “N ot i ce of A ppeal , ” f

r om w hi ch the ci r cui tcour tent er ed an “ A gr eed O r derf orSt ay Pen ding A ppeal ” as t o enf or cementof

t he

“ A m e n d e d F in a l J u d g m e n t.”

### 23 I S S UES ¶2 8
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: (1) W hethert he A ctprecl ud es the P l ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s. (2) W h ethe r th e c ir cu itco u rtab u sed its d isc retion in ad m itti n g the e x p ert t es t i m ony of

D r . K evi n M er i gi an, D r . J enni f erM aj er s i k, D r . S. H
. Subr amony, and D r . G aku I chi har a. ( 3) W hethert he ci r cui tcour t ’ s gr ant i ng of c ert ai n j ury i ns t ruct i ons cons t i tut ed rev ersible e rror. (4 ) W h e th e r th e c irc u it co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in p e rm itt in g th e ju ry to con si der pun i t i ve d am ages. ( 5) W he t he rt he pu ni t i ve da mage s a s s e s s e d i n the c i r c ui tc ou r t ’ s “ A mende d F i n a l J u d g me n t ” we r e e r r o n e o u s a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. A N A L Y S IS I. W h ether the A ct preclud es t h e P l ainti ff s’ cl aim s. ¶29
. T he app l i cabil i t y of t he A ct , M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 71 -3- 1 t hroug h 71 -3- 22 5, i s a q u e s tio n o f la w . T h is C o u rt re v ie w s q u e s tio n s o f l a w d e n o v o . See Miss. E thics C o m m ’n
v. G r is ham , 9 57 S o. 2d 997, 1000 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng 32 P it B ulldogs v. Count

y of P renti ss , 8 0 8 S o . 2 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 )). ¶30. Par agr aphs t hr ee thr ough s i x supra s etoutt he hi s t or i cal backgr ound of t he A ct , al ong
w i t h ourpe r t i nentde ci s i ons a ddr es s i ng i nt ent i onal
- t or texce pt i ons t o t he A ct . I n Mil ler , this Cour tf ou nd t ha tc e r t a i n i nt e nt i on a l t ort s a r e ou t s i de the s c op e of the e xc l us i vi t y p r ov i s i on
c o n tain e d in M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -9
. See Mil ler , 444 So. 2d at371 ( “w her e an i njury i s caus ed by t he w ill fu l a c t o f a n e m p lo y e e a c tin gin th e c o u rs e a n ds c o p e o f h is
em ploym ent and in the furtheran ce o f h is em ployer’s busi ness , the [A ct ] i s notthe exc l us i ve
r em edy a v a ila b le to th e in ju re d p a rt y ” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o R o y a l O il , 500 So. 2d at 4 4 2 (“ th e [A c t] d o e s n o t b a r a n e m p lo y e e fr o m p u rsu in g a c o m m o n la w re m e d y a g a in st h is

### 24

empl oyerf

oran i nj ur y caus ed by hi s em pl oyer ’ s w i l f ul and m al i ci ous act ”)
. M i s s i s s i ppi l aw cl ear l y pr ovi des t hatcert ai n i nt ent i onal t or t s l i e beyond the s cope of the A ct ’ s excl us i vi ty. ¶3 1. H ow ever , i n P eas ter , w e hel d t hat“[ a ] mer e w i l l f ul a nd mal i c i ou s act r emai ns i ns uf f i ci entt o gi ve r i s e t o the exce pt i on unde rt he A ct . ” P eas ter , 6 4 2 S o . 2 d a t 3 4 8
. See a l so B lailock , 795 So. 2d at535 ( “[ r ] eckl es s orgr os s l y negl i gentconducti s notenough t o r emove
a c laim fro m th e e x c lu s iv ity o f th e A c t.”). B e fo re re c o v e ry m a y b e h a d fo r th e sp e c ific in ju rie s a n d /o r d ise a se s w h ich th e P lain tiffs c laim , the re m u st b e p ro o f o f a c tu a l in ten t to i nj ur e by Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on. I n G riffin , thi s C our ts t at ed: D u n n , Mis s issi

ppi W orkm en’s C om

pens at i on , (3d ed
. 1 9 8 2 & S u p p . 1 9 8 4 ), not es t hati n or derf

ora w i l l f ul t or tt o be out s i de the excl us i vi ty of the A ct , the empl oyee’ s act i on m us tbe done “ w i th an act uali nt ent to i nj ur e the em

pl oyee . I ti s notenough t o destr oy t he i m m uni t y t hatt he empl oyer ’ s conductl eadi ng t o t he i nj ur y cons i s t s of aggr avat ed negl i gence oreven thatthe conduc tgoes beyond thi s t o i ncl ud e such el ement s as know i ngl y perm i t t i ng haza r dous condi t i ons t o exi s torw i l l f ul l y f ai l i ng to fur ni s h a s af

e pl ace t o w or k or k n o w in g ly o rd e rin g th e e m p lo y e e to p e rfo rm a d a n g e ro u s jo b . [F o o tn o te om i t t ed]
. ” Id
. at§ 22. G riffin , 533 So. 2d at464 ( emphasi s added)
. A f t err ef er enci ng t he above
- quot ed por t i on of G riffin , t hi s C our taddr es s ed t he r equi s i t e l evel of “ i nt ent ” i n P eas ter . See P eas ter , 642 So. 2d a t347- 49. I s s ue I I ther ei n s ucci nct l y pl ace d be f or e t he C our tthe ques t i on of w het her “thi s C our ts houl d r ecogni ze a n exce pt i on t o t he exc l us i ve l i abi l i t y pr ovi s i on w her e the
e m p lo y e r h a s k n o w in g ly p e rm itt e d h a z a rd o u s c o n d iti o n s to e x ist w h ic h a re su b sta n tially
cert ai n t o r es ul ti n i nj ur y ordeath. ” Id . at 3 4 8 . A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: [ t ] he appel l ant s ur ge thi s C our tt o “ cons i derenlar gi ngt he s cope of

t he i nt ent i onal t or texce pt i on t o i ncl ude t hos e act s w hi ch cons i s tof t he empl oyer w i l l f ul l y perm i t t i ng hazar do us condi t i ons t o exi s tw hi ch ar e su b sta n tia lly cer tai n, al tho ug h perhaps nots peci f i cal l y i nt ended, t o r es ul ti n the i nj ur y or death of an em pl oyee .”T h is is in a c c o rd w ith th e s ta n d a rd a p p lie d b y th e m a jo ri ty o f s ta te s . 

### O f th e fo rty 41 st at es w hich r ecog nize an i ntent i on al -t ortexcep t i on t o thei r w orkers ’ com pen sat i on st atutes , onl y t w el ve have adopt ed a br oaderdef i ni t i on than “a ctual i nt entt o i nj ur e. ” See 6 L ar s on, Lars on’s W

orker s ’C om pens at i on Law § 1 03
. 01 nn . 4-6; § 1 03
. 0 4 [1]
. “U nd er the m ost p o p u lar fo rm u latio n , ad o p ted b y e ig h t sta tes , an e m p lo y e r is su a b le in to rt if it k n o w s th a t it s conductcaus i ng t he i nj ur y i s ‘ s ubs t ant i al l y cert ai n’ t o caus e i nj ury ordeath. ” Id . at § 103. 04[ 1] 

### . Seeals o Bazl ey v. Tortorich , 397 So. 2d 475, 480 ( La. 1981) ( exampl e of appl ic ation of

the“s ubst antia lly ce rt ain” s tandard). 25 . . . . T her e i s n othi ng novel aboutthe appr oach s ugges t ed by the appe l l ant s of enl ar gi ng t he s cope of

t he exe m pt i on t es t . W e have s t at ed con si s t ent l y our pos i t i on on t hi s i s s ue. T he l egi s l atur e has had every opportuni t y t o i ncl ude in to th e A c t su c h a lib e ra l e x c e p tio n s u g g e ste d b y th e a p p e llan ts, y e t fa iled to d o s o . If

this C o u rtw ere to inc lud e w h at th e leg isl ature d id n o t, w e w o u ld vi ol at e the “purpos e, s pi r i tand phi l os ophy of the [ A ct ]
. ” B row n v. E stess , 374 S o . 2 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). P eas ter , 642 So. 2d at348- 49 ( emphasi s added)
. I n concl us i on, the P eas terC our thel d: [t] h e e m p lo y e r’s c o n d u c t m a y h a v e b e e n re c k les s, n e g lig e n t, or g ro ss ly n e g lig e n t, b u t th a t [is] n o t e n o u g h to re m o v e th is c a se a s a n “ in ten tio n a l to rt” from th e ex clus ivity of th e [A ct]
. T h is C o u rth a s h e ld r epea t edl y t hatt he e m p lo y e r’ s a c tio n m u s t b e d o n e “ w ith a n a c tu a l in te n t to in ju re th e e m p lo y e e ,” and that“an i nt ent i onal t or ti s an actof i nt ent i onal behavi ordes i gned t o br i ng a b o u t the injury
. ” W e d o n o t t o d ay ch o o se to ex p an d this C o u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f w h a t c o n s titu te s a n in te n tio n a l to rt e x c e p tio n .[ ] 41 Id . at 3 4 9 -5 0 . T h is v iew re p e a ted ly h a s b e e n a c k n o w led g e d b y fe d e ra l a n d s tate c o u rts in M is s is s ip p i. See Baile

y v. Loc khe e d Mar tin Corp. , 4 3 2 F
. S up p. 2d 66 5, 67 1 (S. D
. M i ss. 2005) ( ci t i ng P easter forthe propo si t i on that “[ t ] o be deem ed i ntent i on al , [ t he em ployer’ s]
a c ts o r in ac ti o n m u st be d esig n ed to b ri n g ab o u t th e inju ry.”); Tho r nto n v. W . E. Bla in & Sons, I nc. , 878 So. 2d 1082, 1086 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng P eas terf ort he pr opos i t i on t hatt hi s C our t“al r eady ha s decl i ned t o cr eat e a ‘ s ubs t ant i al cert ai nty’ exce pti on t o t he

### Inc luding Clark’ s t es timony f rom his Novem

ber 2, 2004, a ff

idavit and Nove mbe r 42 

### 2, 2 00 5, d epo sition
. See footnote19 sup ra . 26 exc l us i vi t y p r ov i s i on of t he A c t. . . ” )
. W e c on c l ud e , on c e a ga i n, tha tthe A c ti s e xc l us i ve abs entan ac tual i nt entt o i nj ur e the empl oyee. ¶3 2. N o par t y cont es t s t hatt he Pl ai nt i f f s ’ i nj ur i e s “ a r os e ou tof a nd i n the c ou r s e of empl oy ment. . . . ” M i s s . Code Ann. § 7 1- 3- 3( b) ( Rev. 2 00 0)
. The c i r c ui tc our tw as pr es ent ed w i t h t he i s s ue of w hethert he A ctpr ecl uded the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s att hr ee di s t i nct sta g e s o f th is p ro c e e d in g : F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n ’s “ M o tio n to D ism iss ,” F ra n k lin C orpor at i on’ s “M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent , ” and Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on’ s “M ot i on f or J
. N
. O
. V
. ” A teac h s t age, t he ci rcui tcour tr ej ect ed Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on’ s cont ent i ons
o th e rw ise a n d d e n ied the res p e c tiv e m o tio n s. R e g a rd in g the “M o tio n to D ism iss ,” th e c irc u it
cour tf ound “thatt he Pl ai nt i f

f s have a l l eged s uf

f i ci entf act s and ca us es of

act i on, w hi ch under t he r el evants t andar d of

r evi ew , s at i s f

y the i nt ent i onal t or te xcept i on t o the appl i cat i on of [ the A c t].” T a k in g th e a lle g a tio n s s e t f o rt h b y th e P la in tif

fs a s tru e , s ee P enn N

ati onal G am ing, In c. v. R a tl

if f , 954 So. 2d 427, 430 ( M i s s . 2007) , thi s C our tf i nds no err ori n t hatrul i ng. ¶33
. A s t o t he “M o ti o n for S u m m ary Judg m ent, ” based up on t he coll ect i ve “p l eadings, d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e rs to in te rr o g a to ri e s a n d a d m is s io n s o n fi le , to g e th e r w ith . . . a ff id a v its ,” 42 M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 56 (c), th e circu itco u rtco n clud ed th at th e re w e re “genui ne i s s ues of

f actas t o w hethert her e w as i nt entt o i nj ur e[ , ] ” w i t h r es pectt o t he P lain tiffs’ c laim s o f b a ttery an d inte n tio n a l i n flictio n o f em o tio n a l d istre ss a g a in st F ra n k lin C orpor at i on. T hi s C our tf i nds no err ori n t hatrul i ng.

### “Subs tanti alevi denc e”ha s be en de fined a s “ inf orm ation of

suc h qual it

y and we ight 43 

### that rea sona

bleand f air- minded j uror s in theexe rc is e of im parti aljudgm ent

mi ght have re ac hed di ff

er ent conc lus ions .” A dco ck v. Miss. T ra n sp . Co m m ’n , 981 So. 2d 942, 948- 49 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). 

### 27 ¶34. Fi nal l y, r egar di ng t he “M ot i on f or J
. N
. O
. V
. , ” t he ci r cui t cour t f ound “that dur i ng t he
c o u rse o f th e th re e w e e k trial . . . th e re w a s s u b sta n tial, cr e d ib le e v id e n c e p re se n ted
. . . to
s uppor tt he Pl ai nt i ff

s ’ caus es of

act i on f orbat t ery and i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal d istre ss . . . . ” A c c o rd in g ly , the c irc u it co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t: [i] n c o n sid e rin g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t, g iv in g th a t pa rty the b e n e fit o f all fa v o ra b le in fe re n c e s th a t m a y b e re a so n a b ly d ra w n fro m th e e v id e n c e , an d fin d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s o f su c h q u a lity and w ei ghtthatr eas onabl e and f ai r - m i nded j ur or s i n the exer ci s e of i m par t i al j udgm entm i ghthave r eac hed di f f er entve r di ct s , the courtf i nds t hatD ef

endant Fr ankl i n [ C orpor at i on’ s ] M ot i on f orJ
. N
. O
. V
. s houl d be deni ed. G i ven the cons i der abl e t es t i m ony of f er ed by empl oyees a nd m anage m entper s onnel of F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n , v iew e d “ in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to [th e P lain tiffs], g iv in g th a t p a rty th e b e n e fi t o f a ll fa v o ra b le in fe re n c e th a t m a y b e re a s o n a b ly d ra w n fr o m th e e v id e n c e [,]” Spotlite Skating R ink, I nc. v. B ar nes , 9 8 8 S o . 2 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ati o n o m itted), t hi s C ourtaff

i rm s t he deni al of

J
. N
. O
. V
. gi ven the “s ubs t ant i al evi dence [ ] t o s uppor tt he 43
ver di ct . ” A dcock , 981 So. 2d at948. I I . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n adm i t t i ng t he expert t es t i m ony of

D r. K evi n M eri gi an, D r. Jenn i f er M aj ers i k, D r. S. H . Sub ram ony, and D r. G aku Ic hi hara. ¶ 3 5
. T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [ u] nderM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 702, t r i al cour t s ar e char ged w i t h bei ng g a te k e e p e rs in e v a lu a tin g th e a d m is s ib ility o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y . [Ir b y v. T ra v is , 93 5 So
. 2d 88 4, 91 2 ( M i s s . 20 06 ) ]
. “ W e a r e c on f i de ntt ha tou rl e a r ne d tr i al j udges can a nd w i l l pr oper l y as s um e the r ol e as ga t ekee peron ques t i ons of

### “‘[S]cientific’ imp lies a gro un di n g i nthe meth od s andpro cedures of scien ce.” 44 D auber t v. Mer r el

l D ow Pharm s . , I

nc. , 509 U
. S. 579, 590, 113 S. C t . 2786, 2795, 125 L
. E d. 2 d 4 6 9 , 4 8 1 (19 9 3 ). 

### “Knowl edge ” a

ppli es to “ ‘any body of known f ac ts or t o any body of i dea s infe rr ed 45 

### from s uch f

ac ts or a cc ept ed a s truth on good grounds .’ Webs te r’ s Third Ne w Int er nationa l Di c t i on ary 12 52 ( 19 86 )
. Of c our s e , i t w ou l d beunre a s on abl e t o c on c lud e that the subj ec t of s ci entific testimony m ust be ‘ known’ t o a c ertaint y.” Da ub ert, 509 U. S. at 590. Furthermo re, “in ord er to qualifyas ‘scientific kno wled ge,’ aninferen ce or assertio n mu st be de ri ved by the s ci entif ic me thod. ” Id
. 28 admi s s i bi l i t y of

e xper tt es t i m ony. ” Miss. T ran sp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 863 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 4 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). W att s v. R adiatorSpecialt

y Co. , 990 So. 2d 143, 146 ( M i s s . 2008). A ccor di ngl y, “[ t ] he tr i al j udge has t he s ound di s cr et i on t o admi torr ef us e expe r tt es t i m ony; an abus e of dis cret i on stan da rd means t he j udge’ s deci s i on w i l l s t and unl es s t he di s cr et i on he us ed i s f ound t o be
arbi t r ary and cl ear l y err oneous . ” T r oupe v. McA uley , 955 So. 2d 848, 856 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng P oo le v. A vara , 9 0 8 S o . 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 1 ( M is s . 2 0 0 5 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See a l so B onner v. I

SPT ech. , I nc. , 259 So. 2d 924, 932 ( 8th C i r . 2001) ( “[ w ] e per f or m onl y the compar at i vel y narr ow anal ys i s of w hetherthe di s t r i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatthe opi ni on
w as s uf f i ci ent l y gr ounded i n ‘ good s ci ence ’ t o as s i s tt he j ury co nst i tut ed an a bus e of t hat
co u rt ’s discre ti o n . ”). ¶36
. M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of E vidence 7 02 st at es: [ i ] f s ci ent i f i c, [ ] t echni cal , orot hers peci al i zed know l edge[ ] w i l l as s i s tthe 44 45 t ri er of factt o u nd ers t and the evidence or t o determ i ne a f acti n i ssue, a w i t ness qual i f i ed as an exper tby know l edge, s ki l l , exper i ence , t r ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y t her et o i n the f

or m of a n opi ni on orot herw i s e, i f ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf

f i ci ent fact s ordat a, ( 2) t he t es t i m ony i s t he pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and (3) t he w i t nes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o t he f act s of the ca s e.

### 29

M iss . R . E v id . 7 0 2 . In sh o rt, th e trial ju d g e m u st “ e n s u re th a t an e x p e rt’s te stim o n y b o th
r es t s on a r el i abl e f

oundat i on and i s rel evan tt o t he t as k athand. Per t i nentevi dence bas ed
on s ci ent i f

i cal l y val i d pr i nci pl es w i l l s at i s f y t hos e demands
. ” D au bert , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 7
. See al s o W a tts , 990 So. 2d at146 ( “[ t ] hi s rul e makes i tne ces s ary f ora tr i al courtt o appl y a tw oprong ed i nq uiry w hen eval uati ng the adm i ssi bil i t y of expertt est i m on y: (1) i s t h e w i tness qu a l i f i e d, a nd ( 2) i s the t e s t i mony r e l e va nta nd r e l i a bl e ? ” )
. I n D a u b ert , t he U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt:
s etoutf ournon- excl us i ve f

act or s t o ai d i n t he det erm i nat i on of w hethert he m ethodol ogy i s r el i abl e. T hey ar e: ( 1) w hetherthe t heory ort echni que has been t es t ed; ( 2) w hether t he theory ort echni que has been s ubj ect ed t o peerr evi ew and publ i cat i on; ( 3) t he know n orpot ent i al r at e of err orof t he m ethod us ed and the ex i s t ence and mai nt enanc e of s t andar ds co n tro lli n g th e tec h n iq u e ’s o p e ra tio n ; an d (4 ) w h e ther the theo ry o r m e th o d h a s b e e n g e n e ra lly ac c e p ted b y th e s c ien tific comm uni t y. C urtis v. M & S P etr oleum , I nc. , 174 F. 3d 661, 668- 69 ( 5th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng D au bert , 509 U
. S. at593- 94)
. T hi s appr oach i s “a f l exi bl e one. I t s over ar chi ng s ubj ecti s t he
s ci ent i f i c val i di t y – and thus t he evi dent i ary re l evanc e and r el i abi l i t y – of t he pr i nci pl es t hat under l i e a pr opos ed s ubm i s s i on. T he f ocus , of co urse, m ustbe s ol el y on pr i nci pl es and
m ethodol ogy, noton t he conc l us i ons thatthey gene r at e. ” D au bert , 509 U
. S. at594- 95. ¶37. D r . S. H
. S ub ram on y, D r. K evin M eri gian, D r. G aku Ichi har a, and D r . J enni f er M ajersik w ere am o n g the P lai n tiffs’ de sign ated ex p erts. T h e d ep o sit ion test im o n y o f D r. Subr amony, a boa r d- cert i f i ed neur ol ogi s t , w as thata f t err evi ew i ng the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ m edic al

### Th is literature inclu ded , most n otab ly, th e abstract to a case repo rt byDr. M ajersik 46 

### indi cating that “ [1- BP] is reporte dly [harm fulto humans at] about 25 [ppm ] .”Dr. Maj er si k’s ca sereport , c o-a

uthored by E. Martin Caravati , M. D., and J ohn D. St ef fe ns, M.D. , wa s subs eque ntly publi she d as “Se ver e neurot oxic it y as soc iate d with expos ureto t he s olve nt 1- brom opropane (n–propylbrom ide )”in Clinic al Tox ic ology45 at 270-76 ( 2007). This c ompor

ts wi th thedeposi ti on t es timony of Frankl in Cor porati on’s expe rt , Dr
. 47 

### Geo rge W ilkerso n, th at exp osure to 1 -BP wa s su ff ic ie nt to, an d d id, cau se the n euro log ic inj uri es suf

fe re d by Plaintif

fs Tedf ord and Haire . Acco rdin g to Dr. M erigian , “[t]here was aphysicianwh o h adwrittensome case 48 

### report s or a cas e report

about som e expos ure s to [ 1-BP] , and the n the rewas a l ot of ani ma l dat a on rats with [1- BP] .”Dr. Me ri gian late r i dentif ie d thi s c as e r eport a s that authore d by Dr. M ajersik. See footnote46 sup ra . 30 re c o rds, alon g w ith p erti n en t l it era ture o n 1 -B P , “m y interpre tat ion o f th ese fou r pa ti en ts 46 i s t hatt hey had va r yi ng degr ees of t hi s s ame pr obl em[ , ] ” nam el y, res i dual neur ol ogi cal def i ci t s f r om expos ur e t o 1- B P. I n of f er i ng this o pini on, D r . Subr amony conceded thathe
w as unaw ar e of

t he exa ctconce nt r at i on of 1- B P t o w hi ch the Pl ai nt i f f s had bee n expos ed. N onethel es s , D r . S ubr amony aver r ed thathi s concl us i ons and opi ni ons “ar e s uppor t ed by the
overw hel m i ng f

act s and the ext ens i ve dat a ava i l abl e on the ef f ect s of 1- B P on ani m al s as
w el l as hum ans , and w er e r eac hed by us i ng s ound m ethods thatar e w i del y acc ept ed i n t he
m e d ic a l a n d s c ie n tif

ic c o m m u n ity .” ¶38. T he depos i t i on t es t i mony o f D r . M e r i gi a n, the tr e a t i ng phys i ci an f orthe Pl ai nt i f

f s , w as t hatt hei ri nj ur i es w er e ca us ed by expos ur e t o 1- B P. I n r ender i ng t hi s opi ni on, D r . M er i gi an 47 ad m itted th at he w as u n aw are of th e ex ac t co n ce n tr ati o n of 1 -B P to w h ich th e P lai n ti ffs w ere exp osed o r the p reci se expo sure l evel atw hich 1-B P beco m es harm ful t o h um ans. N one t he l e s s , Dr
. M e r i gi a n ba s e d hi s c on c l us i on u po n hi s e xa mi na t i on o f the Pl a i nt i f

f s , an i nt ernets ear ch r egar di ng 1- B P, the “comm on f i ndi ng” i n t es t s run by otherphys i ci ans on 48

### Acc ording to t he deposi ti on te stim ony of Dr . Caravati , “i t would be dif fi cult t o find 49 

### any on e anywh ere who wou ld be more qu alified to rend er” an expert o pin iononthe to xicity of 1- BP to humans than Dr . I chihara. Even Frankl in Cor porati on’s expe rt , Dr . Robe rt Cox, stated th at Dr. Ich ihara “is o ne o f the lead ing researcher s that p ub lishedon[1-B P].” Thes e include the c as e r eport e nti tl ed “ Encephal omye loradi cul oneuropathy 50 

### fol lowing expos ureto an indus tria l s olve nt”by Gary Sc hlar in Clinic al Ne urology and Neurosur ger y 101 at 199-202 ( 1999); Dr. Ic hihara ’s own ca sereport entitle d “Neurol ogic al Dis orde rs in ThreeWorke rs Expose d to 1- Brom opropane”in Jour nal of Occ upati onal Hea lth 44 at 1-7 (20 02 ); andDr. M ajersik’s case rep ort. See footnote46 sup ra . 31 th e P lain tiffs, h is re v iew o f th e S o ft S e a m M S D S , a n d th e fa c t th a t “[t]h e y a ll w o rk e d w ith in
a s pr ay ar ea thathad bee n m odi f i ed [ i n Sept ember2003] and they w er e us i ng a type of gl ue th a t is a k n o w n n e u ro to x in . A n d a s [F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n ] m a n ip u late d th e e n v iro n m e n t to p r e v e n tt h e g l u e f

r o m g o i n g o n t o o th e ri n d i v i d u a l s wi t h i n t h e f a c t o r y i t s e l f

, th e s y mp t o ms and s i gns ar os e. ” A s D r . M er i gi an s t at ed, “ [ t ] he bot t om l i ne i s i tal l f i t s t ogether
. ” H e adde d t hatw hen he s poke w i t h Shemper tby phone, “ [ Shem per t ]
. . . c om m ent ed t hat the gl ue
caus ed thes e i s s ues but
. . . he w oul d notbe r es pons i bl e beca us e he w as i gnor antt o the f act th a t th e g lu e w o u ld c a u s e th e p ro b le m .” ¶39. T he depos i t i on t es t i m ony of D r . I chi har a, an occupa t i onal t oxi col ogi s t and a l eadi ng
e x p e r to n 1
- BP t o x i c i t y , wa s t h a t“ we . . . b e l i e v e i f e x p o s u r e l e v e l i s h i g h e rt h a n s o me 49 leve ls,
. . . suc h o v ere x p o su re to [1-B P ] ca n ca u se n eu rolo g ical da m ag e in h u m an s ev en [i f]
w e don’ tknow t he .
. . very pr eci s e r el at i ons hi p of t he dos e r es pons e. ” H e bas ed thi s opi ni on upon cas e r epor t s w hi ch he had bot h a uthor ed and r evi ew ed. W hi l e conc edi ng t hathe had 50 notexami ned the Pl ai nt i f f s and w as notaw ar e of

the exa ctconce ntr at i on of 1- B P t o w hi ch t hey w er e expos ed, D r. Ichi hara of f er ed hi s opi ni on t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal and

### He a dd ed thathe had neversee n a w or kpl ace usi ng 1-BP forfi ve year s w i t houtany 51 v e n tila tio n s y s te m . 

### Dr. Caravatifound the opinions of Dr . I chihara t o be “bas ed upon suf fi ci ent dat a and fa ct s[ ,] ” the byproduct “of re li abl e princ ipl es and metho ds that ar e acceptable and uti li ze d in t he c omm unit y of e xpert t oxic ologi st s[ ,] ” and there sult of “correctlyapp l[yin g] the p ertinent prin ciples an d meth od s to th e relevant facts and d ata . . . .” A s D r . M aj er s i k s t at ed, t he under l yi ng pr obl em i n det erm i ni ng the pr eci s e l ow er

52 l evel of 1- B P expos ur e w hi ch caus es ne ur ol ogi c damage i n hum ans i s t hata phys i ci an ca nnot ethi cal l y “puta bunch of peopl e i n a r oom . . . expos e them t o gl ue and s ee w hatha ppens as a c a s e s e ri e s .” 

### Franklin Corporation’ s m oti ons wi th respect to Dr. Subramony and Dr. Merigi an 53 

### specificallystated th at their o pin ion s oncausatio n w ere “offer ed d espite [th eir] inabilityto state: (1) what lev el of expo sure to [1-B P] is need ed to cause n euro log ic injuries in human s; and ( 2) what le vel s of expos urethe Pl ainti ff s e xperie nce d.”The a ff

idavit and t es timony of Dr. Rober t Cox, a board- ce rtif

ie d physi ci an in me dic altoxi col ogy and e me rge ncy m edi cine, was o ff er ed by Frankl in Cor

porati on to s upport

thi s c ri ti ci sm . In re spons e, thePlaintif fs off er ed the deposi ti on testi mony of Dr. Caravati , whom

Dr. Cox ac knowle dged t o be an expe rt in t he f ie ld of toxi col ogy, provi ding “[ i] t is my opinion t hat Dr. Merigi an’ s opinions that heini ti al ly f

ormulate d as a tre ating phys ic ian witha toxic ologi ca l ba ckground wer e basedup onsufficient data an d facts to enab le Dr. M erigianto ren der h is op inio ns.” 32 scien ti fi c p rob ab il ity that the P lai n ti ffs’ sym p tom s a n d h ea lth p rob lem s w ere d u e to e x p o su re t o 1
- BP. 51 ¶40. T he depos i t i on t es t i m ony of D r . M aj er s i k, a boar d- cert i f i ed neur ol ogi s t , w as t hat f ew
s tu d ie s h a v e b e e n d o n e o n th e e ff e c t o f 1 -B P o n h u m a n s . B a s e d u p o n h e r c a s e re p o rt , “ [w ]e know t hatm y pat i ent s had neur ol ogi c d am age at . . . [ 108 ppm ]
. . . . W e don’ tknow how l ong i tt akes , . . . h ow m any w eeks , m onths , days , hour s of expos ur e i tt akes
. A l l w e have
a re d is c re te p o in ts in tim e to s a y s o m e b o d y h a d th is p ro b le m . . . .” 52 ¶41. Fr ankl i n Corpor at i on s ubs equent l y f i l ed o r j oined m oti on s i n li m i ne to c o n d u c t a D a u b e rt heari ng , seeki ng t o ex cl ud e t he ex pertop i nion t est i m on y o f D r. S ub ram on y, D r. M er i gi an, D r . I chi har a, and D r . M aj er s i k. T he Pl ai nt i f f s re s ponded t hat“[ a] tt he cor e of t he 53

### Dr. Subramony wa s t ende re d and a cc ept ed a s an expe rt in t he f ie ld of neurology. 54 

### Dr. Merigi an wa s te nder ed and acc ept ed as an expert “in thefie ld of ge neralpra ctic e and as a tre ating phys ic ian of the [ P] laintif fs in t his ca se .”Dr. Maj er si k was te nder ed and a cc ept ed as an e xpert “ in t

he f ie ld of neurolo gyand clinic alfindings as soc iate d with the[1- BP] tox icity an d n euro log ical injury.” Acc ording to Ma

je rs ik, bas ed upon the OSHA r eport, thePlaintif fs expe rienced 55 

### “abo ut tw ice the expo sure lev el” of M ajersik’s case-re po rt patients. Mo reov er, the p atients in h er case repo rt exh ibited“verysimilar” symp toms to the P laintiffs. 33 D ef endant s ’ m ot i ons , t he D ef endant s i nvi t e the [ c] our tt o i gnor e the s w orn t es t i m ony of expert s i n thei rr es pect i ve f i el ds , a nd they s eek t o ha ve t he [ c] our tj ourney dow n the r oad of ‘m i croanal ys i s ’ of

eac h expert ’ s opi ni ons . ” Fol l ow i ng hear i ng, the ci r cui tcour tdeni ed F rankl i n C orporat i on ’s D a u b e rt m ot i ons as t o each phys i ci an. R egar di ng D r . I chi har a, the ci r cui tj udge s t at ed “thati s t he one t hati s nothar d form e . . . . [ I ] t ’ s l ogi cal t o[ w ar d] thatt he j ur y under s t ands t hatt hi s stuf f i s danger ous and,
. . . so, yes. I t hi nk i thas a val ue. I t hi nk that this t esti m o n y i s . . . go ing t o assistth e jury , fi n d er of fac t. ” A s t o D r. S u b ram o n y , D r. M er i gi an, and D r . M aj er s i k: t he [ c] our ti s goi ng t o m ake a pr ovis i onalr ul i nghe r e t oday s o thatt he part i es c a n g o fo rw a rd a n d th a t w ill b e th e [c]o u rt w ill a c c e p t th e m a s te n d e re d in th e ir f i el ds of expe r t i s e and thatt hey meett he D a u b e rt cr i t er i a f orexpertt es t i m ony a ss istin g th e trier o f fa c t. S p e c ifica lly , inc lu d in g th a t th e y a re q u a lif

iedin th e ir f i elds . T h a t the ir op i nions are helpf ul to the j ury and the opi ni ons thatthey r enderar e r el evant

a n d th a t th e ir o

p in io n s a re b a se d

u p o n re lia b le m ethodol ogi es . I

thi nk this is a f

i eld w i th l i m i t ed r el i abl e m ethodo l ogy . . . . I r es erve the r i ghtt o change m y m i nd butt hati s the rul i ng her e t oday and that i s t he one I w oul d as k t hatyou r el y on i n pr ocee di ng hence f or t h. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶42. A t t r i al , eac h phys i ci an w as t ender ed and acc ept ed i n hi s or her res pecti ve f i el d of exper t i s e wi t ho uto bj e c t i on . Bas e d up on h e re du c a t i on a nd e xp e r t i s e , h e rr e vi e w o f t he 54 P lain tiffs’ m e d ica l re c o rd s, h e r r e se a rc h o n th e su b jec t o f 1 -B P to x icity , an d h e r c a se re p o rt, 55

### Acc ording to Dr . Me ri gian, the r es ult s of theair t es ting at

Franklin Corporation 56 

### “help ed so lidify ” his o pin ion s. 34 D r . M aj er s i k opi ned “thatthe l evel s a tw hi ch thes e [ P] l ai nt i f f s w er e expos ed w as s uf f i ci ent to c a u s e th e n e u ro lo g ic d a m a g e a s I r e a d a b o u t th e d a m a g e fr o m th e p h y s ic ia n s ’ r e p o rt s .” W hi l e admi t t i ng t hatt he l ow erl evel of harm f ul expos ur e t o 1- B P has notyetbeen d isc o v e re d , sh e sta ted th a t “it se e m s th a t th e ex p o su re lev e ls a n d th e c o n d iti o n s th e p a tien ts h a d is a d e q u a te f

o r m y e x p e rt o p in io n .” D r. S u b ra m o n y tes tified th a t: I concl uded thatt hei rhi s t or y of exposur e w as caus at i ve bec aus e they al l had a very s i m i l ars t or y. T hey al l ha d s i m i l arf i ndings on n eur ol ogi cal exami nat i on, and they al l w er e gett i ng bet t eraf t erthe expos ur e w as r emoved, and none o f

t he l a bo r a t ory s tud i e s a nd br a i n s c a n s tud i e s . . . do ne by other peo ple had reveal ed an y o t her cause forthis
. A lth o u g h D r. S u b ra m o n y c o n c e d e d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w th e P lain tiffs’ le v e l of e x p o su re to 1- B P, hi s opi ni on, t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal pr obabi l i t y, w as thatthei rexpos ur e l evel
w as in jury -ca u sing , b ase d up o n “tem p o ral asso ciati o n ” an d rese arc h reflecti n g that ex p o su re t o 1- B P can ca us e neur ol ogic i njur y. A tt r i al , D r . M er i gi an ac know l edged thathe di d not know t he l ow erl evel of expos ur e t o 1- B P t hatcaus es neur ol ogi c i nj ury t o hum ans , buthe
r ei t er at ed hi s opi ni on, t o a rea s onabl e degr ee of m edi cal pr obabi l i t y, t hat1- B P caus ed the P l ai nti ff s’ i njur i es. 56 ¶ 4 3
. O n a p p e a l, F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n a rg u e s th a t “[e ]ac h o f th e P lain tiffs’ fo u r e x p e rts
ex h ibit s a fatal fl aw . N o n e k n ew of th e [1-B P ] ex p o su re l ev el atw h ich inju ry o c c u rs in hum ans . . . . N one knew of t he expos ur e expe r i ence d by the par t i cul arPl ai nt i f f s . ” A s s uch, Fr a nk l i n Corpo r a t i on c on t e nd s tha tthe i r“ t e s t i mony do e s n otmee tthe r e qu i r e ment s of
a d m is s ib ility o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y u n d e r M .R .E . 7 0 2 .”

### “Wh ile case-study rev iew is certain ly an accep ted meth od olo gy , trial courts still 57 

### must b e certain th at th e co ntent of th ose case stu dies is re le vant to t he f ac ts at hand. ” Wa tts , 990 So. 2d at 146 ( em

phas is adde d). As theexpe rt

in Cu rtisnote d, “ theMSDS is a va li d and a cc urateportrayalof the 58 

### hazard s . . . becau se [MS DS s] are prepare d to hav e all of th e info rmationregard ing health andenv ironmental h azards, an d b ecause th e manu facturer is requiredto researchthe b est, pee r- re vie wed s ci entif

ic li te rature t o for

m t hes e [ MSDSs] .” Cu rtis , 174 F. 3d at 669. 35 ¶4 4
. A t tri al, F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n d id n o t object t o the ten d er o f D r. S u b ram o n y , D r. M er i gi an, D r . I chi har a, and D r . M aj er s i k as exper t s , or t o t hei ractual t es t i m ony. T her ef or e, this C o u rt w ill lim itit s an alys is t o the c ir cu itco u rt ’s de n ial o f F ran k li n C o rpo rati o n ’s D a u b e rt m oti on s as t o each ph ysi ci an. O nly i f the ci rcui tjudge abu sed h i s dis cret i on i n so
ru lin g , a c tin g in a n “ a rb itr a ry a n d c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s ” m a n n e r, w ill th is C o u rt fi n d e rr o r. See T r oupe , 955 So. 2d at856. ¶45. T he neur ol ogi cal i m pactof 1- B P on hum ans i s a r el at i vel y new f i el d of s tudy. A s the ci r cui tj udge s t at ed, “thi s i s a f i el d w i t h l i m i t ed r el i abl e met hodol ogy . . . . ” Fur t herm or e, as D r . M aj er s i k not ed, det erm i ni ng t he exa ctl ow erl evel of 1- B P expos ur e w hi ch ca us es
n e u ro lo g ic in

ju ry in h u m a n s is c h a llen g in g , g iv e n ap p ro p ria te, e th ica l co n stra in ts. A t b e st, nondef i ni t i ve det erm i nat i ons have be en r ender ed vi a r el evantcas e r epor t s , M SD Ss, and 57 58
o rg a n iza tio n a l re c o m m e n d a tio n s. T h is C o u rt fin d s su c h s o u rc e s to b e su ffic ien t. “[I]tw o u ld be unr eas onabl e t o concl ude thatt he s ubj ectof s ci ent i f i c t es t i m ony m us tbe ‘ know n’ t o a
cert ai nt y. ” D au bert , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 0 . “ [T ]he firs t se v e ra l v ictim s o f a n e w to x ic to rt sh o u ld
n o t b e b a rre d fro m h a v in g th e ir d a y in c o u rt sim p ly b e c a u se th e m e d ica l li ter a tu re , w h ich w ill eventual l y s how t he conne ct i on betw een t he vi ct i m s ’ c ondi t i on a nd t he t oxi c s ubs t ance , has notyetbeen c om pl et ed. ” B onner , 259 F. 3d at928 ( quot i ng Turnerv. I ow a Fir e E qui

p.

### 36

Co. , 229 F. 3d 1202, 1208- 09 ( 8t h C i r . 2000) )
. Si m i l ar l y, t hi s C our tf i nds t hatt he abs ence of dat a on the exact e xpos ur e l evel atw hi ch humans s uf f erneur ol ogi c i nj ury oughtnot p rec lud e the P lai n ti ffs’ ex p erts from t esti fyin g , w h en co m b ined w ith F ran k li n C o rpo rati o n ’s
s t i pul at i on t hat1-B P is a neu r ot oxi n w hi ch ca n caus e neur ol ogi c i nj ury t o hum ans and the tes tim o n y o f its e x p e rt, D r. G e o rg e W ilk e rso n , th a t e x p o su re to 1 -B P c a u se d th e n e u ro lo g ic i nj ur i es s uf

f er ed by Pl ai nt i f

f s T edf or d and H ai r e ( des pi t e notknow i ng t he exa ctl evel at
w h ich 1 -B P ca u ses in

jury in h u m an s). ¶ 4 6
. T h e c o llec tiv e c a se re p o rts, M S D S s, a n d o rg a n iza tio n a l re c o m m en d a tio n s, p a ire d w ith t he di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce , s uppor ta ca us al connec t i on b e tw e e n th e P la in ti f

f s ’ e x p o s u re to 1 -B P a n d th e irin ju ri e s . See C u rtis , 174 F. 3d at670 (“[i ] n the p rese n t case , b o th sc ientif ic li terature an d str o n g circu m stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt th e c a u sa l co n n e c tio n .”). “ U n d e r so m e c irc u m sta n c e s, a str o n g te m p o ra l co n n e c tio n is pow erf ul evi dence of

caus at i on. ” B onner , 259 F. 3d at931. C aus al connec t i on i s f ur ther vali dated by the resul t s of the airt est i ng perf orm ed b y H ou sm an, P arker , and O S H A
. T hese t es t s es t abl i s hed thatt he Pl ai nt i f f s w er e “e xpos ed t o a quant i t y of t he t oxi n t hat‘ exce eded saf e l evel s . ’ ” Id
. ( quot i ng B ednarv. B as s ett F urniture M

f g. Co. , 1 4 7 F . 3 d 7 3 7 , 7 4 0 (8 th C i r . 1998) )
. A s s uch, t hi s C our tf i nds thatther e w as s uf

f i ci ent “‘ evi dence f

r om w hi ch a
rea so n ab le pe rson co u ld co n c lud e’ tha t [ the P lai n ti ffs’] ex p o su re p rob ab ly ca u sed [th eir] i nj ur i es . ” Id . at 9 2 8 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n b y th e c irc u it j u d g e in ad m itti n g the e x p ert t esti m o n y o f D r. S u b ram o n y , D r. M erigian , D r. Ich ihara , an d D r. M aj er s i k, as t hei rqual i f i cat i ons w er e notl egi t i m at el y ques t i oned, and thei rt es t i m ony w as
s u ff ic ie n tly re le v a n t a n d re lia b le
. See W a tts , 990 So. 2d at146.

### 37

I I I . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t ’ s gr ant i ng o f c e r t ai n j ur y i ns t r uc t i ons cons t i t ut ed reve rs i bl e er ror. ¶ 4 7
. On a p p e a l , F r a n k l i n Co rp o r a t i o n a r g u e s t h a tI n s t r u c t i o n s P
- 2 , P
- 3 , a n d P
- 4 A,
c o n sid e re d a s a w h o le, in c o rre c tly sta te th e la w a n d e x ist in “ su b sta n tial c o n flict” w ith Instruct i on D 1-2, t hereby requi ri ng rever sal
. Instruct i on D 1-2 st at es: [ t ] he C ou rti nst ruct s the Jury t hat i n o rdert o rec o v er on t heircl ai m s agai nst D ef endantFr ankl i n C orpor at i on, t he Pl ai nt i f f s have t he bur den of

pr ovi ng by a pr eponder ance of

t he cr edi bl e evi dence thatFr ankl i n know i ngl y expose d the Pl ai nt i f f s t o unr eas onabl y danger ous l evel s of t he i ndus t r i al s ol ventw hi ch cont ai ned [ 1- B P] w i t h an actual i nt entt o caus e them i nj ury. I ti s notenough f ort he Pl ai nt i f

f s t o pr ove thatD ef

endantFr ankl i n negl i gent l y oreven know i ngl y perm i t t ed haz ar dous condi t i ons t o exi s t , orthatitn egl i gent l y or even w i l l f

ul l y f ai l ed t o f ur ni s h the Pl ai nt i f

f s w i t h a s af

e pl ace t o w or k, ort hat itk n o w ing ly o rde red the P lai n ti ffs to p erfo rm a d an g ero u s job
. If, a n d o n ly if , you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of t he cr edi bl e evi dence t hatD ef endant Fr ankl i n engage d i n conductdes i gned t o caus e the i nj ur i es f orw hi ch the Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m dama ges, m ay you f i nd f orthe Pl ai nt i f

f s . I f you f i nd by a pr eponder ance of

t he cr edi bl e evi dence t hatt he Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o pr ove t hatD ef endantFr ankl i n know i ngl y e xpos ed them t o unr eas onabl y danger ous lev e ls o f th e in d u stria l so lv e n t w h ich c o n tain e d [1 -B P ] w ith a n a c tu a l in ten t to caus e them i nj ur y, t hen i ti s yours w orn duty t o r eturn a ver di ctf orD ef endant F rankl i n C orporat i on on each o f the P l ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s. In stru c tio n P -2 p ro v id e s, in p a rt, th a t: [i] n o rd e r to e sta b lish th a t an in ten tio n a l to rt w a s c o m m itt e d b y D e fe n d a n t, F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n , P lain tiffs m u st p ro v e th a t, m o re lik e ly th a n n o t, D ef endant , Fr ankl i n Corpor at i on e i t herdes i r ed t o caus e the cons equenc es of it s ac ts, o r be li ev ed that the c o n seq u en ce s w ere su b sta n tially c e rta in to re su lt from it
. S aid a n o ther w ay , if F ran k li n C o rp. kn ew that the c o n seq u en ce s w ere cert ai n, or s ub s t a nt i a l l y c e r t a i n, t o r e s ul tf r om i t s a c t s , a nd s t i l l go e s a he ad, Fr ankl i n C orp. i s t r eat ed by the l aw as i f i thad i n fa ctdesi r ed t o produc e the re su lt. Instruct i on P -3 st at es: [ t ] he C our ti nst ruct s you t hatw i t h r egar d t o t he i nt ent i onal t or t s al l eged by Pl ai nt i f f s agai ns tD ef

endantFr ankl i n Corp. , ba t t ery a nd i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s , i nt ent m ay be i nf err ed f r om the ci r cumst ance s of the

### 38

cas e. I nt ent i s an emot i onal oper at i on of t he mi nd, and i s us ual l y s how n by act s and dec l ar at i ons of t he def endantcoupl ed w i t h f

act s and ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng hi m att he t i m e. A def endant ’ s i nt ent i on i s m ani f es t ed l ar gel y by t he thi ng s he do es. In stru c tio n P -4 A re g a rd in g b a ttery p ro v id e s, in p a rt, th a t: i f you f i nd b y a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatFr ankl i n C orp. i nt ended th a t th e P lain tiffs u se d th e g lu e c o n tain in g [1 -B P ], a n d th a t D e fe n d a n t F ra n k lin C orpor at i on knew thatPl ai nt i f f s w oul d i nhal e the vapor s / f um es and thats uch in h a latio n w a s k n o w n to F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n to b e c a u sin g p h y sic a l h a rm to t he Pl ai nt i f

f s , and/ or su b sta n tially c e rta in t o caus e phys i cal harm t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s , and thats uch har m f ul orof

f ens i ve cont actw i t h t he gl ue vapor s / f um es occurr ed, and thats uch harm f ul orof f ens i ve cont actcaus ed or contr i bu t ed t o caus e i nj ur y t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s , then i ti s yourdut y t o r eturn a ver di cti n f

avorof t he Pl ai nt i f

f s and aga i ns tFr ankl i n C orp. ¶ 4 8
. In re v iew in g th e g ra n t o r d e n ial o f ju ry in stru c tio n s, th is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t:
w e a r e re q u ir e d to re v ie w a ll o f t h e in s tru c tio n s a s a w h o le
. R i char ds on v. N or f ol k & Souther n R

y. , 923 So. 2d 1002, 1010 ( M i s s . 2006). N o i ns t ruct i on s h o u ld b e r e v ie w e d in is o la tio n . B u rr v. Miss. B ap tist Medical Ctr. , 909 So. 2 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). W h en an alyz ing the g ran t or refu sal o f a jury i ns t ruct i on, t w o ques t i ons shou l d b e as ked: D oes the i ns t ruct i on cont ai n a corr ects t at ementof

l aw and i s t he i ns t ruct i on w arr ant ed by the evi dence ? H ill v. D unaw ay , 4 8 7 S o . 2 d 8 0 7 , 8 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ). D e fe c ts in sp e c ific i nst ruct i on s w i l l no tm and at e revers al w hen al l of t he i nst ruct i on s, t aken as a w hol e f ai r l y – al t hough notper f ect l y – announce the appl i cabl e pr i m ary rul es o f l a w . B u rton v. B a rn e tt , 6 15 S o. 2d 580, 583 ( M i s s . 1993)
. T he above s t andar ds not w i t hs t andi ng, t hi s C our tw i l l nothes i t at e to r ever s e i f the in stru c tio n s, w h e n a n a ly z e d in th e a g g re g a te, d o n o t fa irly a n d a d e q u a tely in s tru c t th e ju ry . R i char ds on , 923 So. 2d at1011. B eve r l y E nter. , I

nc. v. R eed , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 4 0 , 4 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶49. W e f

i nd t hatt he c on f

l i c tbetw een I ns t ruct i on D 1- 2 and I ns t ruct i ons P- 2 and P- 4A does
no tri se t o the l evel of

rever si ble errorw hen read i n con j un ct i on w i t h the ot her i nst ruct i on s. W ith o u t do u b t, the re feren ce s to “ su b sta n tiall y ce rt ain” in In stru cti o n s P -2 a n d P -4 w ere
e rr o n e o u s . T h e A c t is e x c lu s iv e a b s e n t a n a c tu a l in te n t to in ju re th e e m p lo y e e . See ¶ 31

### Regarding Ins tr uction P-3 , Frankl in Cor porati on obje ct ed t o thelanguagethat 59 

### “inte nt m ay beinf

er re d from thecircum st anc es of the ca se .” The circ uit judge over

rul ed that ob jection , deemin g th e abo ve-quo ted lan gu ag e to be a co rrect statement o f the law . Th is Co urt ag rees. See Miss. Bd. of Nursi ng v. Wil son , 624 So. 2d 485, 494 ( Mis s. 1993) ( ci ting Ho lling swo rth v. S

tate , 392 So. 2d 515 (Mi ss . 1981)) ( “[ i] t is we llse ttle d that inte nt m ay be shown by c ircum st anc es .” ). 39 supra . H ow ever , t hatphr as e w as notpre s ent ed t o t he j ury i n i s ol at i on, f ort hey al s o r ece i ved Instruc ti o n s D 1 -2, P -3, an d the s p ec ial interrog atory (Instruc ti o n P -10 a). ¶50. Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on’ s I ns t ruct i on D 1- 2 i ncl udes t he appr opr i at e s t andar d. H ad that
s t andar d notbeen f

ur ni s hed t o t he j ury, t he ou t com e w hi ch w e r eac h l i kel y w oul d be di ff erent . H ow ever , as t hi s C our ts t at ed i n L am ar H ardw oo d C o. v. Case , 143 M i s s . 277, 107 So. 868 ( 1926) , “[ w ] e t hi nk t he l aw as gi ven t o t he def endantupon thi s pr opos i t i on gi ves hi m t he bene f

i tof al l t hathe w as ent i t l ed t o have upon the ques t i on. ” Id
. at289. ¶5 1. I ns t r uct i on P- 2, r ead i n i t s e nt i r e t y, i s a c orr e c ts t a t e mento f the l a w b utf

or t he
r ef er ence t o “s ubs t ant i al l y cert ai n. ” I ns t ruct i on P- 3 i s a pr opers t at ementof l aw w i thout fl aw . F inally, a sp ec ial interrog atory (Instruc ti o n P -10 a) c o n fi rm ed tha t th e jury 59
s peci f i cal l y f ound f oreac h i ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f on hi s orherbat t ery and i nt ent i ona l
- i nf l i c t i onof
- emot i onal
- di s t r es s cl ai m s agai ns tFr ankl i n C orpor at i on, w hi l e exone r at i ng M i d- Sout h. ¶ 5 2
. T h e la w re q u ir e s a ll in s tru c tio n s to b e re a d to g e th e r. See id
. at 290 ( “the i ns t ruct i ons
m us tbe t aken t oget herand be c ons t rued as a w hol e, one as m odi f yi ng, expl ai ni ng or qual i f yi ng another ; and, i f

t he i ns t ruct i ons t aken as a w hol e corr ect l y announce t he l aw
a p p lica b le to th e c a se , w e w ill n o t re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t b e c a u se o f a n im p e rfe c t sin g le i ns t ruct i on. ”)
. “W her e i tm ay be f ai r l y char ged thatone orm or e i ns t ruct i ons m ay have been conf us i ngl y w or ded, w e s houl d notr ever s e i f otheri ns t ruct i ons cl earup t he conf us i ng

### 40

poi nt s . ” P ayne v. R ain For es t Nurs er ies, I

nc. , 5 4 0 S o . 2 d 3 5 , 4 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). “D e fe c ts in
s peci f i c i ns t ruct i ons do notr equi r e r ever s al ‘ w her e al l i ns t ruct i ons t aken as a w hol e f ai r l y – al t hough notpe r f

ect l y – announce t he appl i cabl e pr i m ary rul es of l aw . ’ ” B urton , 615 So. 2d at583 ( quot i ng Pay ne , 5 4 0 S o . 2 d at 40 ). ¶53. W e al s o have he l d t hata conf l i ctbet w een i ns t ruct i ons does notj us t i f y r ever s al , gi ven t ha tthe e vi de nc e o ve r w he l mi ng l y s up po r t e d t he Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i ms a nd d oe s n otr e s ul ti n a
m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e . See Sm ith v. Mack Trucks, I nc. , 8 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ); Sm it h v. Jones , 335 So. 2d 896, 897 ( M i s s . 1976). I n shor t , “[ t ] he conf l i cti n t he evi dence
m a d e th e ju ry th e ju d g e s o f w h a t th e tru th w a s w ith re fe re n c e th e re to , an d w e a re u n a b le to
s ay thatt he j ur y r eac hed the w r ong r es ul t . ” Case , 143 M i s s . at289. I V . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n pe r m i t t i ng t he jury to co n si d er p u n i ti ve d am ag es. ¶54. “[ T ] he pr i m ary purpos e of puni t i ve dam ages is to puni s h t he w r ongdoerand det er
s i m i l arm i s conducti n t he f utur e by t he def

endantand ot her s . . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 65( 1) ( e) ( R ev. 2002)
. “Puni t i ve damages may notbe a w ar ded i f the cl ai m antdoes notpr ove by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence that the d efe n d an t a g ains t w h o m p u n it ive d am ag es a re
s oughtact ed w i t h act ualm al i ce, gr os s negl igence w hi ch ev i dence s a w i l l f ul , w ant on or
r eckl es s dis r egar d f

orthe s af

et y of ot hers , or com m i t t ed actualf r aud .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 5 (1 )( a ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o P ar acel

s us H eal th Car e Cor

p. v. W il lard , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 2 (M iss
. 1 9 9 9 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ) (“ [p ]un iti v e d a m a g e s a re o n ly
a p p ro p ria te in th e m o st e g re g io u s c a se s s o a s to d isc o u ra g e sim ilar c o n d u c t an d sh o u ld o n ly be aw ar ded i n cas es w her e the ac t i ons ar e extr eme. ”)
. “[ T ] he tr i al courti s t he gat ekee perf or

### 41

t he i s s ue of

w hetherpuni t i ve dam ages, i n cas es i nvol vi ng bot h i nt ent i onal and noni nt ent i onal t or t s , s houl d be s ubm i t t ed and cons i der ed by a j ury. ” Do e v. T h e S a lv a ti o n A r my , 835 So. 2d 76, 79 ( M i s s . 2003)
. “A n abus e of dis cr et i on sta n d a rd is im p lem e n ted w h e n th is C our tr evi ew s t he tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on of w hethera ca s e w arrant s pu nit i ve damages t o be
s entt o the tr i erof

f act . ” Id
. at81 ( ci t i ng Hurs t v. S w . Mis s . L egal

S er vs . Cor

p. , 708 So. 2d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 5 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶55. A ccor di ng t o t he ci r cui tj udge: [ t ] her e’ s no ques t i on t hatt he mat t er s s ubm i t t ed i n this [ c] our t ’s opi ni on , s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur y as t o the bur den of pr oof requi red i n this cas e f orthe sh o w in gr e q u ir e dto a v o id
. . . the ex c lu siv e re m e d y o f W o rk e rs ’ C o m

p is, in f act , higherthan the s tandar d cal l ed f ori n the s tat ut e f

orpuni t i ve dam ages . T here’ s no good r es ol ut i on of that , butw e j us thave t o actthe bes tw e ca n bas ed on the i nf

or m at i on w e do have
. T h e [c]o u rt fin d s th a t in c o n sid e ra tio n o f a ll th e p ro o f th a t h a s . . . g o n e in to evi dence overthe l as tt hr ee w eeks t hat
. . . the j ury . . . di d make a n a w ar d of compensa t or y damages ; and i tw as m or e than a nomi nal amount of m oney; and the [c ] o u rt be li ev es, ba sedon th e p ro o f o ff ere d he re a t this h ea ring, th a t i t’s abs ol ut el y appr opr i at e thatthe j ur y cons i derthe ques t i on of puni t i ve dam ages

. . . . ( E m phas i s added. ) I n s hor t , the ci r cui tj udge f ound ther e w as s uf

f i ci entevi dence t o m eett he “c lear an d co n v incin g ” stan d ard req u ir ed for p u n it ive d am ag es. W e find tha t th e c ir cu itco u rt did not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n p erm i t t i ng the jury to consi der pun i t i ve d am ages. V . W h eth er th e p u n it ive d a m a g es a sses sed in th e c ircu it co u rt’s “ Am e n d e d Fi n a l J u d g m e n t ” we r e e r r o n e o u s a s a m a t t e r o f l a w. ¶56. T he pr operas s es s m entof puni t i ve damages un der M i ssi s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 6 5 (3 ) is a q u e s tio n o f la w , to b e r e v ie w e d b y th is C o u rt d e n o v o . See G r is ham , 957 So. 2d at1000.

### The Com plaint in t he c as e sub judic ewas fi le d on August 16, 2004. 60 

### On and af

te r Septe mbe r 1, 2004, this fi gurebec am e $2, 500,000. Mis s. Code Ann. 61 

### § 11-1- 65(3) (a)(v) ( Rev. 2002). On and a ft er

Sept em ber 1, 2004, this figure bec am e two perce nt (2%) . Mi ss . Code 62 

### Ann. § 11- 1-65( 3)( a) (vi ) ( Rev. 2002). 42 ¶57. Foral l act i ons fi l ed bef or e Sept ember1, 2004, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 65( 3) 60 p ro v id e d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: ( a) I n an y ci vi l act i on w her e an e nt i t l ementt o puni t i ve damages s hal l have b e e n e sta b lish e d u n d e r a p p lica b le la w s, n o a w a rd o f p u n iti v e d a m a g e s s h a ll e x c e e d th e fo llo w in g : . . . (v ) F iv e M ill io n D o lla rs ($ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 )[ ] fo r a d e fe n d a n t w ith 61 a netw or t h of m or e than Fi f t y M i l l i on D ol l ar s ( $50, 000, 000. 00) b u t not m ore t h an O n e H u n d red M il li o n D o ll ars ( $100, 000, 000. 00) ; or (vi) F o u r p e rce n t ( 4 % )[ ] o f th e d efe n d an t’ s n et w o rth for a 62 d efe n d an t w ith a n et w o rth o f F if ty M il li o n D o ll ars ($50,000,000.00) orl ess. (b) F o r th e p u rpo ses o f de term ining th e d efe n d an t’ s ne t w o rth in p ara g rap h (a), th e a m o u n t o f th e n e t w o rth sh a ll b e d e ter m in e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith G e n e ra lly A ccepted A ccou nti ng P ri ncipl es. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 5 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶58. J ef

f r ey C ox, t he chi ef

f i nanci al of

f i cera nd ge ner al c ouns el f orFr ankl i n C orpor at i on, t es t i f i ed thatt he netw or t h of Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on w as $45, 905, 326 i n 2003 and $ 3 7 ,8 1 0 ,1 6 6 in 2 0 0 4 . A c c o rd in g to C o x , as o f D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the n e t w o rth o f F ra n k lin C orpor at i on w as “appr oxi m at el y [ $61, 500, 000 ]
. ” H e di d notbel i eve thatf i gur e w as
s ubs t ant i al l y di f

f er enta tthe t i m e of

tr i al , a nd f

ur t hert es t i f

i ed t hat“ G ener al l y A ccept ed A ccount i ng P ri ncipl es ” w er e appl i ed i n det erm i ni ng t hatf i gur e. I n the “O r derG r ant i ng

### Th e c ircui t j udge a dded that thi s a ppli cati on furthe rs thepoli cy be hind t he 63 

### im posi ti on of punitivedam age s, “r es ult [ing] in f inanci alpunis hme nt t o thedef endant in an amount th at makes th e defen dant earnestlycon sider its actio ns inthe future.” 43 M ot i on t o R econs i derPuni t i ve D amages , t o A l t erorA m end Fi nal J udgm ent , f orR el i ef f r om Fi nal J udgm ent , orf

orO t herR el i ef

, ” the ci r cui tcour ts t at ed: t he langu age of

M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 11- 1- 65 w hi ch r el at es t o t he i m pos i t i on of

t he l egi s l at i ve caps t o a puni t i ve damage aw ar d pr ovi des t hatt he n e t w o rth o f th e d e fe n d a n t “s h a ll b e d e ter m in e d ” in a c c o rd a n c e w ith G e n e ra lly A c c e p ted A c c o u n tin g P rin c ip les , an d th a t s uch language i m pl i es t ha tthe cur r ent ne tworth of

the def endant is to be cons i der ed
. F ur t her , ot herpor t i ons of t he s t atut e r ef

ert o t he netw or t h of t he def endantas a f

act or t o be cons i der ed i n a n e f

f or tt o de t erm i ne t he def

endant ’ s f

i nanci al a bi l i t y t o pay the aw ar d, and l i kew i s e i m pl i es t hatt he curr entnetw or t h of the def endanti s t o be ut i l i zed .
. . . Fur t her , t her e i s no l anguage i n t he s t atut e w hic h pr ovi des that t he pastn et w orth of

t he def endanti s t o be ut i l i zed, and w i t houts uch d istin g u ish in g lan g u a g e , this cour tm us tappl y the com m on m eani ng of the t er m “netw ort h, ” as wel las the com m on i nt er pr etat i on as af

f or ded by a re a d in go f th e sta tu te a s a w h o le .[ ] 63 (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) A p p ly in g “ th e c u rre n t n e t w o rth ” o f F ra n k lin C o rp o ra tio n , th e c irc u it
cou r tr e du c e d t he p un i t i ve d a mage s o w e d t o $5 , 00 0, 00 0 pu r s ua ntt o M i s s i s s i pp i C ode S ec ti o n 1 1 -1-6 5 (3)(a)(v ). ¶ 5 9
. T h is C o u rt p re v io u sly h a s c o n sid e re d th e n e t w o rth o f a d e fe n d a n t atthe t i m e of tr i al
. See W il lard , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 5
. See al s o Cas h v. B el

t m ann Nor th A m er i can Co. , 900 F
. 2d 109, 111 n. 3 ( 7t h C i r. 1 99 0) ( “[ f ] i nanci al dat a pr epar ed f ori ncome t ax purpos es and f our y ea rs old at th e ti m e o f tri al pro v ides w ea k ev iden ce of B elt m an n ’s true n e t w o rth .”). Fur t herm or e, “the pr i m ary purpos e of puni t i ve damages i s t o puni s h the w r ongdoerand det er
s i m i l arm i s conducti n t he f utur e by t he defenda nt. . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 65( 1) ( e)

### Ev en so , the majo rity u ltimately fin ds any erro r to b e harmless. 64 

### 44 ( R ev. 2002). A s such, t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the pr e- Sept ember2004 ver s i on of t he s t atut e and Fr ankl i n C orpor at i on’ s netw or t h atthe t i m e of j udgm ent

w as p rop er. CO NC L US I ON ¶6 0
. A cc o rdin g ly, this C o u rt affirm s the “A m en d ed F inal Ju d g m en t” o f the C ir cu itC o u rt of C al houn C ount y. ¶61. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND GRAV ES , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, K I T C H E N S , C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , P .J ., S P EC I AL LY CONCURS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI CKI NS ON, J . , S PECI ALLY CO NCU RS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY W A L L E R , C . J. , C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H , L A M A R , A N D P I E R C E , JJ.
GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶62. I f ul l y concur w i t h t he m aj or i t y t hat t he j udgm ent of t he t r i al cour t m us t be af f i r m ed. H o w ev er, I w ri te sep ara tel y t o ad d ress the u se o f th e p h rase “su b stan ti all y ce rt ain” in the jury i nst ruct i on s. ¶63. T he maj or i t y f

i nds t hatt he r ef

er ence s t o “s ubs t ant i al l y cer t ai n” i n I ns t ruct i ons P- 2 and P- 4 w er e i n err or . I di s agree w i th the maj or i t y i nas m uch as t he i ns t ruct i ons cont ai n a 64
corr ects t at em ent of the l aw . T he m aj ori t y cit es P eas terv. D avid N ew D r il ling Co. , 642 So. 2 d 3 4 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 4 ), B lailock v. O ’ B annon , 795 S o. 2 d 533, at535 ( M i s s . 2001) , and G r i f f in v. F utor ian C or

p. , 5 33 So. 2d 461 ( M i s s . 1988) , i n at t empt i ng t o def i ne “a ctual i nt ent . ” H ow ever , t hes e ca s es nei t hers t and f ornors uppor tthe pr opos i t i on s ugges t ed by the
m aj or i t y. I n P eas ter , t hi s C our tf ound:

### 45

I n t he compl ai nti tw as al l eged thatD avi d N ew D r i l l i ng “w i l l f ul l y” di s r egar ded i t s dut i es t o J i m m y W i l coxs on, “i nt ent i onal l y” f ai l ed t o r epai rthe br akes on t he t r act or s and t r ai l er s , act ed w i t h “gr os s and r eckl es s di s r egar d f or t he ri gh t s and safety o f the p ub l i c i n g eneral and part i cular l y o f Pl ai nti ff s’ dece dent ” a n d

w ith “k n o w led

g e o f s u b sta n tia l c e rta in ty o f in ju ry .” D e sp ite t hes e al legati ons, the over w hel m ing language and fac t s point to negli gence, including gros s negli

gence . P eas ter , 6 4 2 S o . 2 d a t 3 4 6 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶64. C l earl y, the ups hotof t he P eas terdecis i on w as that this C ou rtfound t hat P l ai nti ff Peas t erhad f

ai l ed t o pr ove the al l egat i ons , w hi ch i ncl uded “know l edge of s ubs t ant i al
cert ai nt y of

i nj ur y, ” and thus had f

ai l ed t o est abl i s h “ac tual i nt ent . ” Ther e w as no di s cus s i on
orf i ndi ng i n P eas tert o s uppor tt he pr opos i t i on thatthe “a ctual i nt ent ” exc ept i on cannotand d o es n o t i n clud e “ k n o w ledg e o f sub stan ti al ce rt ainty o f i n jury
. ” M o reo v er, th e m ajority ’s d iscu ssion o f G riffin l i kew i s e f ai l s t o s uppor tt hi s pr opos i t i on. I n P easter, t hi s C our tquot ed t h e f o l l o wi n g f

r o m G riffin : D u n n , M issi ssipp i W o rkm en ’s C o m p en sati o n , (3d ed
. 1 9 8 2 & S u p p . 1 9 8 4 ), not es t hati n or derf

ora w i l l f ul t or tt o be out s i de the excl us i vi ty of the A ct , the empl oyee’ s [ s i c] act i on m us tbe done “ w i t h an act ual i nt entt o i nj ur e the em p loy ee . Itis no t eno u g h to d estroy the im m u n ity that the e m p loy er’s conductl eadi ng t o t he i nj ur y cons i s t s of aggr avat ed negl i gence oreven thatt he conductgoes beyond thi s t o i ncl ude s uch el ement s as know i ngl y perm i t t i ng h az ard o u s co n d it ion s to e x isto r w il lf u ll y fail ing to fu rnish a sa fe p lace to w o rk o r k n o w in g ly o rd e ri n g th e e m p lo y e e to p e rf o rm a d a n g e ro u s jo b .” P eas ter , 642 So. 2d at347 ( quot i ng G riffin , 533 So. 2d at464)
. T hi s C our tf ur t hers ai d: G r i f f i n [ si c] abs ol ut el y bar s an i nt ent i onal t or tcl ai m even w her e the pr obabi l i t y of

gr os s ne gl i gence e xi s t s . T hus , i n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce, even i f t he appel l ant s coul d pr ove thatD avi d N ew D r i l l i ng w a s gui l t y of gr os s negl i gence , s uch a f i ndi ng w oul d r emai n i ns uf f i ci entto cr eat e an i nt ent i onal t or tand acc or di ngl y r emove t he appel l ant s ’ cl ai m f r om undert he W or km ens ’ [ s i c] C o m p e n sa tio n A c t. A m e re w ill fu l an d m a licio u s a c t re m a in s in su ffic ien t to g iv e rise to th e e x c e p tio n u n d e r th e A c t.

### 46

I d. at348. ¶65. N ot abl y, i n di s cus s i ng P ea ster’s as s ert i on t hat t hi s C our t r ecogni ze a subs t ant i al l yc e rta in e x c e p tio n a n d a p p ly th e R e sta tem e n t d e fin iti o n o f in ten t, th is C o u rt fo u n d th a t: W hat the ap pe l lant s pr op os e is no t

p ar ti c ular l

y ne w orinc ons is te nt

wi th t he p r e v io u s de c isio n s o

f th is Co u rt. A s n o ted , th is Co u rt h a s p re v io u sly cons ider ed t

he R es tatem ent ’s inter

pr etati on of

intent . T he pr oblem is that th e a lleg a tio n s o

f th e c o m

p la in t a n d

a ll ev ide n c e b e

fo re th e lo w e r c o u rt fa ll f ars hort of the s ubstantial

cer taint y w hi ch is r equir ed. I d. at 34 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 6 6
. F u rth e r, B lac k ’s L a w D ictio n a ry d e fin e s “ in ten tio n a lly ” a s fo llo w s, in re lev a n t p a rt: “To do somet hi ng purpos el y, and notacc i dent al l y . . . . Per s on act s ‘ i nt ent i on al l y’ i f he des i r es t o caus e cons equenc es of hi s actorhe b e liev e s c o n se q u e n c e s a re su b sta n tia lly
c e rta in to re su lt
. . . . ” Bl ack’ s Law D i ct i onary 810 ( 6th e d. 1990) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). B lac k ’s d e fin e s “ a c tu a l” a s: “ R e a l; s ubstantial ; ex istin g p re se n tly in fa c t; h a v in g a v a lid o b

jec tiv e e x iste n c e a s o p p o se d to th a t w h ich is m e re ly th e o re tica l o r p o ss ib le

. . . . ” B lac k ’s L a w D ictio n a ry at 3 4 (em p h a sis a d d e d ). B lac k ’s a lso n o tes th e fo llo w in g in t he d efi n it ion o f “i ntent ”: “T he w ord ‘i ntent ’ i s used t hroug ho ut the R est at em ent of T ort s, 2nd, t o denot e thatt he ac t orde s i r es t o c aus e cons equenc es of hi s act , orthathe bel i eves t hat t he cons equenc es ar e s ubs tantial l y c e r tain to resu ltfrom it
. . . . ” B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary at 81 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 6 7
. T h e re fo re , I w o u ld f in d th a t t h e re is n o e rr o r in in c lu d in g su b sta n tially -c e rta in lan g u a g e in th e ju ry in stru c tio n s a lo n g w ith lan g u a g e o f a c tu a l in ten t.

### Connec ti cut , Loui si ana , Ne w Je rs ey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma , South 65 

### Dakot a, Texa s, Cal if

orni a, Mic higan, Wa shington, and We st Virgini a. 47 DI CKI NS ON, J US TI CE , S P EC I AL LY CONCURR I NG : ¶68
. A l t ho ug h I conc ur w i t h the m aj ori t y, I w ri t e separat el y to address tw o p oint s. I. ¶69. T he maj or i t y corr ect l y hol ds that– abs entan ac tual i nt entt o i nj ur e the empl oyee – the “exc l us i ve- r emedy” pr ovi s i ons of t he M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s C om pens at i on A ct( t he “A ct ”) app l y to i njur i es i nfl i ct ed b y em ployers up on em ploy ees. T he v astm aj ori t y o f s t at es, in c lu d in g M iss iss ip p i, h o ld th is v iew , ev e n w h e re th e e m p lo y e r’s c o n d u c t is su b sta n tially
cert ai n t o r es ul ti n i nj ur y. 6 A r t hurL ar s on, L ar s on’ s W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on L aw §103. 03 (20 0 8 ).[ T ] he c o m m o n -l aw l i abil i t y o f the em ployer canno tun der the alm ost un anim ou s rule, be st ret ched t o incl ud e acci den t al i njur i es caused b y the gross, w ant on, w i l f

ul , de l i ber at e, i nt ent i onal , r eckl es s , c ul pabl e, or m al i ci ous n eg li g en ce , b rea ch o f statute, o r o ther m isco n d u ct of the em p loy er sh o rto f a cons ci ous and del i ber at e i nt entdi r ect ed t o the purpos e of i nf l i ct i ng an i nj ury. Id
. ( f oot not es omi t t ed)
. A l t hough thi r t y- ei ghtj ur i s di ct i ons ( i ncl udi ng M i s s i s s i ppi ) “f ol l ow th e ru le th a t a c tu a l in te n t to in ju re is n e c e s s a ry to c o m e o u ts id e o f th e e x c lu s iv ity p ro v is io n ,” t w el ve s t at es di s agr ee. T hus , “i n r ece ntyear s t her e has be en a tr end t ow ar d perm i t t i ng
co m m o n law su it s w h en the in jury is th e re su lto f ac ti o n s the em p loy e r k n ew w ere

‘ s ubs t ant i al l y cert ai n’ t o caus e i nj ur y. A bouta d ozen s t at es now f ol l ow thi s ora s i m i l ar 65
ru le.” L a rso n ’s § 1 0 3 .0 3 n .1 . H o w e v e r, o u r p re c e d e n t h o ld s th a t: [ i ] ti s notenough t o des t r oy [ W or kers Com pens at i on] i m m uni t y t hatthe empl oyer ’ s conductl eadi ng t o t he i nj ury cons i s t s of
. . . know i ngl y perm i t t i ng h az ard o u s co n d it ion s to e x isto r w il lf u ll y fail ing to fu rnish a sa fe p lace to w o rk

### Th e abo ve quo ted lan gu age fro m Dunn is cor re ct . Howe ver , the Griffin Court 66 

### mi st ake nly indi cate d that

the “e mpl oyee ’s ” ac t, rather than theempl oyer ’s act , mus t be done withactua l inte nt t o inj ure . Thus , the Gri ff in C o urt in c lu d e da

typ o g r a p h i c a le rr o r . We the re for e now m akethecor re ction. 48 o r k n o w in g ly o rd e rin g th e e m p lo y e e to p e rfo rm a d a n g e ro u s jo b
. . . . T h is C our thas hel d r epea t edl y t hatthe empl oyer ’ s act i on m us tbe done w i t h an actual i nt entt o i nj ur e t he em ployee, and that“an i nt ent i onal t or ti s an ac tof in te n tio n a l b e h a v io r d e s ig n e d to b ri n g a b o u t th e in ju ry .” P eas terv. D avid N

ew D r il ling C o. , 6 4 2 S o . 2 d 3 4 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶ 7 0
. In 1 9 8 8 , this C o u rt re v ie w e d a n in ju re d w o rk e r’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e C o u rt sh o u ld

“ re c o g n ize th a t th e in

ju rie s s u sta in e d b y h im c o n stitu te a n e w to rt o u tsid e th e e x c lu siv ity ru le of t he [ A ct ]
. ” G r i

f f in v. F utor ian C or

p. , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). S p ea k ing for a
u n a n im o u s C o u rt, C h ief Ju stic e R o y N o b le L e e s tate d th a t “ [s]o m e s tate s h a v e a m e n d e d th e ir
w or ker ’ s compensa t i on act s t o m ake e xcept i ons t o the exc l us i ve r emedy. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s act has notbeen a m ended i n t hatr es pects i nce i t s pas s age. ” Id
. at463. R ecogni zi ng ( as t he
m aj or i t y does t oday) t hatan actual i nt entand des i gn t o i nj ur e i s nece s s ary, the G r i f f in C o u rt ci t ed w i t h appr oval t he f ol l ow i ng author i t y: [ I ] n or derf

ora w i l l f

ul t or tt o be out s i de the exc l us i vi t y of the A ct , the [ empl oyer ’ s ] act i on m us tbe done “ w i th a n a ctual i nt entt o i nj ur e the empl oyee. I ti s note nough t o de s t r oy the i m m uni t y t hatt he empl oyer ’ s conductl eadi ng t o t he i nj ur y cons i s t s of aggr avat ed negl i gence oreven thatthe conduc tgoes beyond t hi s t o i ncl ude s uch el ement s a s know i ngl y pe r m i t t i ng hazar dous condi t i ons t o exi s torw i l l f ul l y f ai l i ng t o f

urni sh a saf

e pl ace t o w or k or k n o w in g ly o rd e ri n g th e e m p lo y e e to p e rf o rm a d a n g e ro u s jo b .” G r i f f in v. F utor ian C or

p. , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 46 4 (cit ing D u n n , M issi ssipp i W o rkm en ’s C om pens at i on ( 3d ed. 1982 & Supp. 1984) ) ( emphasi s added)
. I ti s of s om e s i gni f i canc e 66

### 49

t hat– s i nce G riffin w as handed dow n s om e tw enty year s ago – the L egi s l atur e has t aken no act i on t o addr es s orcontr adi cti t s hol di ng. ¶71. T hus , abs entt he empl oyer ’ s del i ber at e i nt entand des i gn t o i nj ur e t he empl oyee, the l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi – as i tcurr ent l y exi s t s – does notal l ow an i nj ur ed em pl oyee t o es cape t he excl us i ve- r emedy pr ovi s i ons of t he A ct . T he l aw on t hi s poi nti s s o cl earthatdi s cus s i on of t he contr ary vi ew i s unnece s s ary. A nd upon thi s poi nt , I f ul l y concurw i t h t he maj or i ty. II. ¶72. A not herpoi ntI bel i eve i m por t antconce r ns the pr ocedur e f orpr es ent i ng t o t he t r i al
cour tan as s er t i on tha tt he A ctpr ovi des a pl ai nt i f f’ s excl us i ve r emedy. A s a mat t erof pr ocedur e, i n or dert o pre s erve t he i s s ue f orappeal , a def

endants houl d r ai s e the mat t eri n t he first in sta n c e as an aff

irm a tiv e d e fe n se o r (a s in the ca se b e fo re u s to d a y ) in a m o tio n to di s m i s s . T he conve r s e i s al s o t rue, t hati s , t he pl ai nt i f f has no dut y t o r ai s e orar gue the i s s ue. ¶73. B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onary def i nes an af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e as “[ a] def

endant ’ s as s ert i on of f act s and ar gum ents t hat , i f t rue, w i l l def

eatthe pl ai nt i f

f’ s . . . cl ai m , even i f

al l t he all eg ati o n s in the co m p lai n t are tru e.” B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary 35 6 (8th e d
. 2 0 0 5 ). F ran k li n ’s p o sitio n is th a t – e v e n th o u g h e v e ry th in g the p lain tiffs sa y in th is la w su it m a y b e tru e – it i s
no nethel ess ent i t l ed to di sm i ssal fr om this ci vil suit , b ecause the A ctprovides the p l ai nti ff s’ excl us i ve r emedy. ¶74. A s s t at ed, i n t he ca s e bef or e us , Fr ankl i n r ai s ed t he ques t i on by mot i on t o di s m i s s , and t he tr i al j ud ge d enied the m oti on , fi nd i ng that the is sue inv o l ved a qu est i on of f act . T hu s, F ra n k lin p ro p e rly p re se rv e d th e iss u e fo r a p p e a l.

### 50

¶75. Fur t herm or e, a def endants eeki ng t o es cape t or tl i a bi l i ty v i a a n a f f i r m at i ve def

ens e has t he addi t i onal dut y t o s eek a j ur y i ns t ruct i on f ort hataf f i r m at i ve def

ens e w hi ch pl ace s t he b u rd e n o f p ro o f ( a s to th e a ff ir m a tiv e d e fe n s e ) s q u a r e ly u p o n th e d e fe n d a n t. See N atchez E lec. & Suppl

y Co. , I nc. v. Johnson , 968 So. 2d 358, 361 ( M i s s . 2007) ( “The bur den of pr ovi ng a n a f

f i r mat i ve d e f

e ns e l i e s u po n t he p a r t y w ho r e l i e s u po n t ha td e f e ns e . ” ( ci t i ng Jenkins v. P ens acola Heal th T r ust , I nc. , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 )))
. ¶ 7 6
. F ra n k lin a rg u e s th a t th e ju ry in stru c tio n s w e re c o n tra d icto ry a n d d id n o t p ro p e rly i ns t ructt he j ur y on i t s a f f i r m at i ve def

ens e. T he i ns t ruct i ons w hi ch w er e gi ven addr es s t he p lain tiffs’ b u rd e n o f p ro o f in e sta b lish in g th e c a u se s o f a c tio n p e n d in g b e fo re th e c irc u it
cour t . T he i ns t ruct i ons ( r eci t ed i n the maj or i t y op i nion) addr es s i ng t hos e ca us es of act i on
w e re , in m y jud g m e n t, c o rre c t. T h e fa c t th a t th e ju ry w a s n o t in stru c ted e x a c tly a s F ra n k lin t hi nks i ts houl d have be en s houl d notbe vi ew ed as err oron the partof t he pl ai nt i f

f s , w ho had no dut y t o of

f eran i ns t ruct i on f

r om Fr ankl i n’ s per s pect i ve. ¶77. T hatsai d, undert he f act s o f t his case (a s di s cus s ed by t he m aj or i t y) , any addi t i onal i ns t ruct i on off

ered by Fr ankl i n w oul dn’ thave a f f ect ed the out come anyw ay. B uti n t he i nt er es tof

compl et enes s , I of

f ert hi s anal ys i s w hi ch I bel i eve t o be compl ement ary – r ather t han contr ary – t o t he maj or i t y. W A L L E R , C .J ., C A R L S O N , P .J ., R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.