Opinion ID: 2072173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: In support of jurisdiction, Perry first argues that actions arising out of an employer's intentional torts are not barred by the act's exclusivity provision. As we noted above, when an employer challenges the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the burden is on the employee-plaintiff to establish that the cause is properly before the court. This requires that the plaintiff adduce evidence supporting jurisdiction and not merely rely on the pleadings. Cf. Tribbett v. Tay Mor Indus. (1984), Ind. App., 471 N.E.2d 332 (employee's naked allegations of intentional tort insufficient to withstand 12(B)(1) motion). Even when supplemented by Perry's affidavit, we still believe the record fails to establish facts which would support Perry's intentional tort theory of jurisdiction. This subject is treated at some length in Baker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 637 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1994), where we hold today that no intentional tort exception to the act exists. We held instead that to sustain a tort claim an employee must demonstrate that his injuries were not by accident as defined in the act. Reviewing the facts of this case under the standards announced in Baker, we conclude that Perry's injuries were by accident. Under Baker, an injury is by accident when it is intended neither by the victim-employee nor by the employer. Before an injury can be said to have been intended by an employer, two requirements must be met. First, the employer itself must have intended the injury. Inasmuch as the intentions of co-workers and third parties play no part in this consideration, many intentionally inflicted injuries must be deemed by accident under the act. See, e.g., Evans, 491 N.E.2d 969 (fatal shooting of employee by co-worker held by accident). Second, the employer-tortfeasor must act with the requisite level of intentionality. While there can be no doubt on this record that the offending Stitzer managers intended Perry's injuries to result, the evidence does not link this intent to the Stitzer corporate entity. Tortious intent will be imputed to an employer that is a legal entity or artificial person where either (1) the corporation is the tortfeasor's alter ego or (2) the corporation has substituted its will for that of the individual who committed the tortious acts. Baker, 637 N.E.2d at 1275-1276. To prevail on the alter ego theory, the employee must show that both ownership and control of the corporation are in the tortfeasor's hands. Id. at 1275. Under the other prong of Baker, a corporation is chargeable with tortious intent when the individual who committed the tortious act was acting pursuant to a policy or decision made through the corporation's regular decision-making channels by those with authority to do so. Because the requisite level of intentionality must also exist, injury to the employee must be shown to have been the intended product of the policy or decision at issue if the proponent of jurisdiction is to prevail. Employing the language of summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants acted independently or as the alter ego of Stitzer. Perry, 604 N.E.2d at 618. Our search of the record, however, has produced no evidence that any of the alleged tortfeasors acted as such. In Daniels v. Swofford, 55 N.C. App. 555, 286 S.E.2d 582 (1982), the plaintiff was a food service employee said to have been verbally abused and kicked by the president of the corporation. The court allowed the intentional tort claim to proceed against the president but not the corporate defendant, reasoning that there was no evidence to support an allegation that the president acted as the alter ego of the corporation. See also Jablonski v. Multack, 63 Ill. App.3d 908, 20 Ill. Dec. 715, 380 N.E.2d 924 (1978) (barring suit against corporation where restaurant manager not corporate alter ego); Wright v. Bryan Mfg. Co., 51 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 803 (N.D.Ind. 1989) (barring suit against corporation where no evidence manager was alter ego or acting pursuant to orders) (applying Indiana law). Similarly, while Perry's affidavit does allege that Houk, Loury and Weidner possessed a high level of responsibility within the dealership, there is no evidence that any of them owned and controlled Stitzer Buick. We also find no evidence for Perry's contention that Stitzer intended to discriminate against him and that Houk, Weidner and Loury acted pursuant to Stitzer's instructions. Perry admits as much in his complaint when he says that they were acting for and pursuant to [their] individual and personal desires. The case of Bryan v. Utah International, 533 P.2d 892 (Utah 1975), is instructive on this point. There, the Utah Supreme Court dismissed a complaint against a corporate employer which alleged an intentional tort by one of its managers. The court noted that although the alleged misconduct had proceeded for some time and was known by various supervisors, no proof was offered that the injury was directed or intended by the corporation itself. Id. at 894-95. Here Perry offers no evidence which suggests that the torts here at issue were intended by the officers of Stitzer Buick, nor has our attention been drawn to any corporate policy or decision directing Stitzer's managers to behave as they did. In sum, Perry has failed to establish that jurisdiction was in the trial court on grounds that his injuries were intentionally inflicted by Stitzer and not by accident.