A multi-million verdict in a Texas occupational accident case has brought new attention to questions about when injured workers can pursue personal injury lawsuits, outside of workers’ compensation claims, and what that can mean for both the plaintiffs and defendants in these cases.
The verdict, a $4.05 million award in (6:18-cv-00324), was handed down by a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco in October 2020. While this award may not be the end of the legal battle between the litigants, this case does reveal some key facts that employees, employers, and possibly others should know about occupational injury litigation.
A Closer Look at Pruitt v. Asphalt Zipper: Work Accident Leads to Product Liability Case
Filed in October 2018, Pruitt v. Asphalt Zipper involves a crushing accident that occurred in 2017 when a water system component fell on top of the plaintiff, Chuck Pruitt, nearly severing one of his feet.
At the time of the accident, Pruitt was working for the Falls County Road and Bridge Department (FCRBD). The 2,300-pound component of the asphalt-pulverizing water system that fell on Pruitt was not in use when the accident happened; instead, it was being stored by the FCRBD.
The Plaintiff’s Allegations of Negligence
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the water system component toppled due to manufacturing and design defects, which destabilized the component, causing it to tip, fall, and crush the plaintiff’s leg. An alternative, safer design of the component was “economically and technologically feasible and would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of accident and/or injury in question without substantially impairing the water system component’s utility,” the complaint explained.
Additionally, the plaintiff accused the component’s manufacturer, Asphalt Zipper, Inc., of failing to provide proper storage instructions and warnings for the component.
This alleged negligence was the basis for the plaintiff’s request for damages to cover medical expenses, pain, suffering, lost earnings, and mental anguish. The complaint also requested punitive damages. It did not, however, name FCRBD as a defendant.
The Defense Counterarguments
In the , the defense denied the allegations, stating the component does not have a defective design and that “the harm for which Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages for was caused by inherent characteristics of the product, which is a generic aspect of the product that cannot be eliminated without substantially compromising the product’s usefulness.”
Asphalt Zipper further contended that the accident was the result of actions or errors on the part of Pruitt and/or his employer. Consequently, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s requests for damages in the answer, countering with a request that the defense litigation costs be covered. Specifically, Asphalt Zipper stated:
The damages sought by this lawsuit against it were, in whole or in part, caused by the neglect and/or intent and/or omissions of Plaintiffs and/or third person(s) over whom Defendant did not control, had no right of control, and/or no duty over which to exercise control. Plaintiffs’ and/or these third person(s)’ acts and/or omissions were the sole proximate cause, sole producing cause, proximate cause, or a cause of the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs and cannot be attributed to Defendant.
The Verdict
On October 28, 2020, after four days of trial and two hours of deliberation, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding Asphalt Zipper 100% liable and awarding $4.05 million to Pruitt. The award included (and was not limited to):
- $1.4 million for lost earnings, past and future
- $1.07 million for physical pain, past and future
- $925,000 for future physical impairment
- $550,000 for medical expenses, past and future
Marking the largest verdict issued by a Waco federal jury, the $4 million award will not be the final chapter of the case if Asphalt Zipper files an appeal. Regardless, this case exemplifies one way in which injured workers can pursue personal injury claims, rather than workers’ compensation claims alone, after a work accident. Other circumstances can also give rise to occupational injury litigation.
When Employees Can Sue Over Work Injuries
Workplace accidents and injuries are typically remedied via state workers’ compensation systems, providing a release of liability for employers and a means for injured workers to recover compensation for medical expenses and lost earnings without having to establish liability.
This covers most accidents caused by employee and/or employer negligence, including a worker’s own reckless actions that may contribute to his or her job-related injuries, with the exception of injuries an intoxicated employee inflicts on themselves. It offers a fast-track remedy and compensation without the delays and costs of litigation.
Despite all of this, workers’ compensation claims are not the only legal option injured workers may have at their disposal, and employers do not have absolute liability with regard to job-related accidents and employees’ injuries. The following examples highlight incidents wherein there may be grounds to pursue product liability cases and/or personal injury lawsuits in addition to a workers’ compensation claim.
An employer’s negligence directly caused the injuries.
Intentional or gross negligence on the part of an employer can be the basis of personal injury cases when that negligence harms employees. While this takes various forms across different industries, illustrative examples employer liability include:
- Failure to sufficiently train employees which in turn prevents a worker from safely performing their job
- Failure to mitigate or warn about risks in the work environment, such as those involving toxic substances
- Creating unnecessary safety risks by failing to comply with essential safety regulations
An employer does not carry workers’ compensation insurance.
Some states require certain types of companies to carry workers’ compensation insurance; others do not. No matter what the specifics of the state laws may be, employers lacking this coverage cannot use it as a shield against personal injury lawsuits. In actuality, such employers directly expose themselves to heightened liability for work-related accidents.
The injured worker is an independent contractor.
Not legally defined as employees, independent contractors (ICs) are not typically protected or covered by any workers’ compensation insurance held by the companies for which they work. Consequently, independent contractors who suffer on-the-job injuries may pursue personal injury suits against companies, both when a company’s negligence and/or the negligence of its employees is involved.
The negligence of a third party was involved.
Third parties can include subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, customers, and motorists. They can also include manufacturers whose products play a role in workplace accidents, as in Pruitt v. Asphalt Zipper, when the jury resoundingly affirmed liability with a $4 million jury verdict.
How Medical Specialists Can Be Key Witnesses in Occupational Injury Litigation
Though lawsuits are not the standard legal remedy for occupational accidents, when injured workers choose to pursue litigation, medical professionals are pivotal as witnesses for both plaintiff and defense.
For the defense, medical expertise can be used to shore up arguments that a plaintiff may have had pre-existing injuries or that the injuries were more likely caused by something other than the alleged negligence of the defendant(s). Similarly, medical professionals testifying for the defense in occupational injury cases may be crucial in establishing that the plaintiff contributed to his or her own injuries and/or that a plaintiff’s experts have not painted an accurate or complete picture.
Alternately, medical specialists for plaintiffs in work accident cases may support allegations that a specific type of negligence—on the part of an employer and/or a third party—caused the injuries involved. These witnesses can also speak to compliance or noncompliance with applicable health and safety regulations and how negligence may have caused certain conditions to develop or worsen over time.
Ultimately, the best medical specialists to support a personal injury case related to a work accident will depend on the allegations, the accident and injuries involved, and other factors. No matter which type of medical professionals are best suited to be witnesses for a specific case, one thing is certain—plaintiff and defense teams can strategically strengthen cases, both in and outside the courtroom, when they engage with experienced medical specialists.
