Opinion ID: 2447668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Analysis of the Wrongful Death, Survival, Personal Injury and Loss of Consortium Claims

Text: The release says: The [Officers] understand[] and accept[] the fact that [they] may be exposed to dangers due to the nature of the mission. [44] This reference to the nature of the mission clearly contemplates a hazardous work environment and the reference to any claim in the release by its plain meaning applies to both contract and tort claims under both Dubai [45] and Delaware law. The Officers' employment contract was drafted with the intent to provide them with a form of workers' compensation if they were killed or injured during the course of their employment. The purpose of the Delaware Workers' Compensation Statute, as well as other similar state statutes, is a trade off. The first goal is prompt compensation to the injured worker for the job related injury without the worker being required to prove any fault. [46] Conversely, the other goal is to preclude the employee from bringing a suit for a common law tort against the employer arising out of a job related accident. Accordingly, [u]nder these statutes, most courts have held that the exclusivity provision of a Workers' Compensation statute precludes a suit for negligence under the common law, even if the injury was caused by the gross, wanton, willful, deliberate, reckless, culpable or malicious negligence, or other misconduct of the employer. [47] Similarly, under Delaware law, derivative claims are barred under the workers' compensation statute because the exclusivity provision extinguishes the predicate claim. [48]