Court Opinion

ID: 9718813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:34:36.644211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:02.674767
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
While I agree with the majority Jovano-vich should not recover, I do so for different reasons. Jovanovich had no common law cause of action for the injuries he received, even if National Can Corporation intended he should suffer such injuries. His exclusive remedy was provided by the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act to the exclusion of all other causes of action.
IND. CODE 22-8-2-6 says in part
The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to this act ... shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, ... at common law or otherwise, ...
This exclusivity extends even to intentional torts. On this subject we have said
Appellants try to draw a distinction between an intentional tort and a negligent tort. The distinction for purposes of our Workmen's Compensation Act is unnecessary. The distinction to be drawn is whether the tort or accident arose out of and in the course of employment. (Citing case). (Emphasis supplied).
Burkhart v. Wells Electronics Corp. (1966), 139 Ind.App. 658, 215 N.E.2d 879, 881. Accord, North v. United States Steel Corp. (C.A.7, 1974) 495 F.2d 810; Tribbett v. Tay Mor Industries, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 471 N.E.2d 332; Blade v. Anaconda Aluminum Co. (1983), Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 1036; Cunningham v. Aluminum Co. of America, Inc. (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1186.
Further, I find nothing in the Workmen's Compensation Act authorizing suits by the employee against the employer based upon the employer's intentional injury of the employee while on the job, nor do I find such language in Evans v. Yankeetown Dock Corp. (1986), Ind., 491 N.E.2d 969, as does the majority. I believe it apparent the trial court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action, and the trial court erred by overruling National Can's motion to dismiss. While this result may seem harsh, our clear mandate is to follow the law. Only the Legislature can make the change Jovanovich sees as necessary in cases of this nature.
Thus, I would remand this cause with directions to set aside the judgment herein and dismiss this action with prejudice.