Court Opinion

ID: 9701331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:15:49.05788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:22.476012
License: Public Domain

GLASSMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
This case presents the Court with the novel issue whether, as a matter of law, an employer, who knows of the risk of death or serious bodily injury to an employee and willfully and intentionally exposes that employee to such risk without the knowledge or consent of the employee, is immune from a civil action for damages for the resultant death of the employee. Because I do not believe it was the intent of the Legislature to allow an employer to willfully and intentionally expose an unknowing employee to serious injury or death and be insulated from liability except to the extent of the benefits provided by the Workers’ Compensation Act, I must respectfully dissent.
Contrary to the Court’s position, I agree with Li’s argument that the language of the Act, as well as our previous decisions, makes clear that the Act was not intended to apply to the circumstances presented by this case. By P.L.1985, ch. 372, Part A, § 34, effective June 30, 1985, the Legislature repealed the former section 94-A, subsection 3, of the Act, which provided,
In interpreting this Act, the [Workers’ Compensation] commission shall construe it liberally.... The rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed shall have no application to -this Act.
and replaced it with the following provision:
All workers’ compensation cases shall be decided on their merits and the rule of liberal construction shall not apply to those cases. Accordingly, this Act is not to be given a construction in favor of the employee, nor are the rights and interests of the employer to be favored over those of the employee.
See 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) (1989). See also 39-A M.R.S.A. § 153(3) (Supp.1993) (adopting virtually identical language in current version of the Act). By the repeal and replacement of the previous section 94-A, subsection 3, the Legislature expressed a clear intent that as between an employee and employer a policy of neutrality must be observed in determining whether any given factual situation comes within the purview of the Act. The Legislature thus clarified that which had been implicit — the Act was not *610intended to compensate employees for all injuries that occurred in the workplace, nor was it to be a refuge for employers desirous of limiting their legal liability for all such injuries.
As recognized by our previous decisions, since the initial enactment of the Act there explicitly have been two essential statutory prerequisites to its application. It must be established that the injury or death of an employee (1) was incurred in the course of employment and (2) arose out of that employment. 39 M.R.S.A. § 4 (1989), repealed and replaced by 39-A M.R.S.A. § 104 (Pamph.1993); 39 M.R.S.A. § 28 (1989), repealed and replaced by 39-A M.R.S.A. § 28-A; P.L.1991, ch. 544, §§ 12,13, repealed and replaced by, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 408 (Pamph. 1993). These two factors are not synonymous. Hebert v. International Paper Co., 638 A.2d 1161, 1162 (Me.1994). “Although an injury may occur in the course oí employment, it does not necessarily arise out of the employment.” Rioux v. Franklin County Memorial Hospital, et al., 390 A.2d 1059, 1061 (Me.1978). To harmonize both statutory components, the crucial question to be determined in each case is whether the record exhibits a sufficient work connection between an employee’s employment and the cause of the employee’s injury or death to justify the employer’s immunity pursuant to the Act. See Comeau v. Maine Coastal Services, 449 A.2d 362, 366-67 (Me.1982). A critical factor in this determination is “whether the activity was ‘implied into the contract of employment’.” Dorey v. Forster Mfg. Co., 591 A.2d 240, 242 (Me.1991) (quoting Moreau v. Zayre Corp., 408 A.2d 1289, 1293 (Me.1979)).1 “The analysis proceeds on a case-by-case basis, weighing each fact situation to decide whether the totality of circumstance makes the activity employment-related.” Dorey, 591 A.2d at 242. No rational construction of the employment contract between Melissa Roy and C.N. Brown would support a conclusion that the events leading to her death were “implied in the contract of employment.” Nor can it be said the totality of the circumstance in this case made the conduct of C.N. Brown employment-related. It is inconceivable that any employer or employee would have expectations that their employment contract would encompass the employer’s willful and intentional exposure of the employee to death by knife wounds inflicted by an ex-employee. See Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 701, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 31, 872 P.2d 559, 572 (1994) (claim of false imprisonment committed by employer against employee is “always outside the scope of the compensation bargain” and not barred by exclusivity provisions of workers’ compensation act).
Here, the Court confines its analysis solely to the issue whether Roy’s death was incurred “in the course of’ her employment. The Court reasons that the present action must fail as a matter of law because the employee’s alleged conduct is not specifically excepted from the Act. This ignores the requirements of the statute and the teaching of our previous decisions. Carrying the reasoning of the Court to its logical conclusion would result in a determination that the Act confers immunity on an employer who during the work hours of the employee willfully and intentionally directs an unknowing employee to descend a flight of stairs, knowing the stairway is unlit and is missing several consecutive steps; shoots the employee at the workplace; or pushes the employee out a third floor window. To suggest, as does the Court, that some of this conduct may be so egregious as to expose the employer to criminal sanctions cannot justify cloaking the employer with the exclusivity and immunity of the Act. See id. 30 Cal.Rptr.2d at 29-30, 872 P.2d at 570-71 (recognizing that employer’s conduct could result in criminal sanctions).
*611This case does not require the Court “to create a judicial exception” to the Act. It is clear from the language of the Act, and our previous construction of that language, that the Legislature never intended the circumstances of this case to be included in the Act. Accordingly, I would vacate the summary judgment.

. The following cases shed more light on this requirement, albeit in circumstances where there were no allegations of willful or intentional conduct on the part of the employer: Johnson v. Drummond, Woodsum, Plimpton & MacMahon, 490 A.2d 676, 678 (Me.1985) (affirming noncom-pensability pursuant to Act for injuries caused by assault at workplace of employee who “created the circumstances that assured the harm [from employee’s husband] could happen only at work”); Chase v. White Elephant Restaurant, 418 A.2d 175 (Me.1980) (affirming noncompensability pursuant to Act for injuries caused by assault of employee at workplace by husband of co-employee).