Court Opinion

ID: 9566128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:34:16.182257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:12.350101
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KEENAN,
with whom JUSTICE LACY joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I disagree only with the remedy devised by the majority. Paradoxically, the majority finds reversible error in the trial court’s ruling that the Workers’ Compensation Act bars some of Garraghty’s tort claims, and yet affirms the trial court’s judgment.
I agree with the majority that this Court is unable to award Garraghty piecemeal relief. However, the relief required under these circumstances is a new trial on all issues. In fact, Garraghty conceded at oral argument that the claims he seeks to present on remand would “overlap” with the claims for which the jury has already awarded damages, and could gain him a double recovery. Moreover, Garraghty has not asked to withdraw his request for a new trial on the overlapping claims if this Court should affirm the jury’s verdict. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand these cases for a new trial on the claims raised in both motions for judgment.