West Virginia’s Intermediate Court of Appeals reopened a worker’s deliberate intention claim against his supervisor but left the employer out of the case.
The decision came in Stanley v. Structsure Scaffold Solutions, filed Dec. 4. Lonnie Stanley worked for Structsure when a dispute flared over delivery timing for materials at a jobsite.
Stanley said his supervisor sat in the driver’s seat of a pickup truck with the passenger door open during the argument. As tempers rose, the supervisor allegedly began moving the vehicle, and the open door struck Stanley. He claimed the act was intentional and meant to cause injury.
Stanley sued both the company and the supervisor, asserting a deliberate intention claim under West Virginia law.
According to InsuranceNews US, the defendants moved to dismiss. A trial court granted the request and tossed the case in full. The appellate court took a narrower view.
Judges ruled the claim against the supervisor should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage.
West Virginia workers’ compensation law generally shields employers from tort claims tied to employee injuries. That protection often extends to co-employees acting in furtherance of the employer’s business. The statute draws a line, though.
A co-employee can lose immunity if he acts with deliberate intention to injure another worker.
State law provides two routes for deliberate intent claims. One requires proof of a specific unsafe working condition through a detailed five-factor test. The other, known as heightened deliberate intent, turns on intent alone.
Under that standard, a worker may pursue a civil claim by alleging the defendant acted with a consciously, subjectively, and deliberately formed intention to cause a specific injury or death.
Stanley relied exclusively on that heightened theory. The appellate court said that choice mattered.
The opinion said Stanley’s allegations that his supervisor intentionally moved the truck in a way designed to strike him met the legal threshold at this early stage.
The complaint laid out deliberate intent allegations clearly enough to proceed against the supervisor.
The court drew the line at the employer.
It declined to disturb the dismissal of claims against Structsure Scaffold Solutions. Stanley did not allege facts showing the company itself acted with deliberate intention. Workers’ compensation immunity continued to protect it.
According to InsuranceNews US, the ruling sharpens an already tight distinction in workplace injury law. Employers often remain insulated, but supervisors and co-employees face real personal exposure when alleged conduct moves beyond negligence and into intentional harm.
