Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court of VA Finds Co-Employee's Assault Did Not Arise 'Out Of' Employee's Employment for Workers' Compensation Purposes.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that when an employee's assault on a co-worker is personal and not directed against her as an employee or because of her employment, the resulting injury does not arise “out of” employment so as to preclude a claim outside of the workers' compensation system. Butler v. Southern States Cooperative, Inc., 2005 WL 2898009 (S.C.Va. Nov. 4).
Among Plaintiff Michelle Butler's responsibilities at Southern States Cooperative (Southern State) Middleburg, VA, store, she was required to schedule and make deliveries of agricultural supplies. In August 2003, Butler was required to help Clarence Allen, another Southern States delivery person, make a delivery of feed to a customer. The company had hired Allen knowing that he had been convicted of felony rape and had a felony parole violation on his criminal record. Prior to their interaction during this incident, Allen had often made personal comments to Butler expressing his interest in dating her. During the delivery, Allen cornered Butler in the cab of the delivery truck and made repeated unwanted sexual advances toward her. As a result, Butler decided to file an action in state court against Southern States under the claims of negligent hiring and retention of Allen, respondiat superior for Allen's assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In response, Southern States, besides denying the allegations in Butler's claim, filed a special plea in bar “asserting that the exclusivity provision of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, Code ' 65.2-307, barred Butler's claims because her alleged injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.” The court below sustained the special plea in bar and dismissed Butler's claim, finding it precluded by the workers' compensation system.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?