Opinion ID: 1711433
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Intent to Injure

Text: Goode seeks to uphold the trial court's summary judgment by contending that Canada cannot prove that Goode intended to injure him. However, § 25-5-11(c)(2) defines willful conduct in the context of the removal of a safety guard or safety device from a machine; it does not require proof of an intent to injure the employee. Section 25-5-11(c)(2) states: (c) As used herein, `willful conduct' means ... .... (2) The willful and intentional removal from a machine of a safety guard or safety device provided by the manufacturer of the machine with knowledge that injury or death would likely or probably result from the removal; provided, however, that removal of a guard or device shall not be willful conduct unless the removal did, in fact, increase the danger in the use of the machine and was not done for the purpose of repair of the machine or was not part of an improvement or modification of the machine which rendered the safety device unnecessary or ineffective. Section 25-5-11(c)(1) defines willful conduct in contexts other than the removal of a safety guard or safety device from a machine: (1) A purpose or intent or design to injure another; and if a person, with knowledge of the danger or peril to another, consciously pursues a course of conduct with a design, intent, and purpose of inflicting injury, then he or she is guilty of `willful conduct.' (Emphasis added.) To establish co-employee liability, Canada is not required under § 25-5-11(c)(2) to prove that Goode had an intent to injure him. See Pettibone v. Tyson, 794 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.2001); Haisten v. Audubon Indem. Co., 642 So.2d 404 (Ala.1994).