Jackson, “Jaws” and the Exclusive Remedy Rule
A Recent Dog Bite Case Explains why the Grand Bargain Exists
A recent case involving an employee who was bitten at work by a co-worker’s dog offers a great explanation why the workers’ compensation system was created. The decision, Robinson v. Cox, (No. 02-19-00370-CV, Tex. App.—Fort Worth, December 3, 2020) sets out the following facts.
Kyra Robinson and Heidi Cox worked at the Gladney Center for Adoption in Fort Worth. Gladney provides a home and counseling to pregnant women who plan on giving up their babies for adoption. Robinson was employed as a house parent; Cox was Gladney’s general counsel and executive vice-president. 
Robinson was injured when Cox’s border collie, Jackson, bit her while both were at work. Gladney’s workers’ compensation carrier paid benefits to Robinson, who then sued Cox to recover damages for her bodily injuries. Cox successfully moved for summary judgment on exclusive remedy grounds and Robinson appealed.
The court of appeals examined the Workers’ Compensation statute and explained that the Act “provides that recovery of workers’ compensation benefits is the “exclusive remedy of an employee covered by workers’ compensation insurance coverage or a legal beneficiary against the employer or an agent or employee of the employer for the death of or a work-related injury sustained by the employee. . .. Because the remedy provided by the Act is exclusive, an employee has no alternative right of action against his employer, or against an agent or employee of the employer, for injuries sustained in the course and scope of employment.”
There are exceptions to the exclusive remedy defense but Texas courts have narrowly applied them, favoring instead the payment of comp to injured employees while offering employers a defense against such personal injury lawsuits. One exception is when an employer intentionally injures an employee. 
A good example of how this exception is applied can be found in the 1985 Texas Supreme Court case, Reed Tool Company v. Copelin, 689 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1985). The court described Copelin’s accidental injury as follows:
George Copelin, a machine operator for Reed Tool, was injured in the course of his employment when a chain tong from the lathe he was operating hit him in the head. He suffered severe brain damage and was left in a coma. Mrs. Copelin alleged that Reed Tool intentionally caused her husband’s injury by intentionally requiring him to work a machine that Reed Tool knew was unsafe, did not meet minimal safety standards, and was defective because of a modification made by Reed. She further alleged that Reed Tool knew her husband was inadequately trained and that they required him to work “such long hours as violated minimum requirements of law.”
The machine was nicknamed “Jaws,” and the evidence established that some employees did not want to operate it. At trial, however, Copelin was unable to prove that Reed Tool intentionally injured him. Therefore, his suit against Reed Tool was dismissed and his exclusive remedy was held to rest in the workers’ compensation system.
Robinson seems to have understood that she would be unable to prove that the Cox or the Gladney Center intended to injure her. Instead, to avoid the company’s exclusive remedy defense, she claimed her injury did not occur in the course and scope of her employment. The court of appeals disagreed:
Gladney’s purpose is to provide a home and counseling to pregnant women who plan on giving up their babies for adoption. Because Cox brought Jackson to Gladney at the request of the birth mothers who resided there, Cox’s act in bringing Jackson to Gladney was an activity that had to do with and originated in Gladney’s business. Additionally, Cox believed that Jackson would assist with the residents’ counseling sessions in furtherance of Gladney’s purpose to provide counseling to the pregnant women. Accordingly, the summary judgment evidence establishes that Cox’s action in bringing Jackson to Gladney was an activity that “had to do with” and “originated” in Gladney’s business and was also an activity “performed” by Cox in “furtherance” of Gladney’s business.
Robinson’s remedy was limited to workers’ compensation benefits.
The occurrence of personal injury litigation between co-workers or between an employee and her employer lies at the foundation of why the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy bar exists. Businesses cannot function successfully when the morning meeting includes the plaintiff on one side of the lathe and the defendant on the other. Thus, the “grand bargain” at the heart of workers’ compensation substitutes a certain, but more limited recovery, without proof of fault, for the potentially higher damages that may be recovered in a lawsuit based on the negligence of the employer or a co-worker.
Accordingly, whether an injury is caused by Jackson or Jaws, or through no fault of the employer at all, so long as it has to do with and originates in the work, business, trade, or profession of the employer and is performed by an employee while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of the employer, an employee’s suit against a co-worker or her employer will be barred by the exclusive remedy rule.
FOLIO
