Blailock v. O'BANNON’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[p]art of the damages sought by Blailock (physical pain and suffering due to the alleged wrenching of her arm, emotional distress, loss of wages, special damages for the loss of the opportunity to compete in the Senior Olympics and punitive damages) are not compensable under the Act because they are alleged to have been caused by wilful and intentional acts, not the negligent or grossly negligent acts. The damages did not arise from an accidental injury or an accidental death. The allegations of Blailock's complaint certainly meet the two criterial set out by the Court in Griffin. [1] Blailock must prove that O'Bannon was working in the course and scope of her employment when she allegedly committed the intentional torts, that O'Bannon's alleged acts were committed with an actual intent to inflict injury, and that Blailock suffered injuries as a result, but the allegations of intentional acts certainly take Blailock's non-compensable claims out of the jurisdiction of the WCC. Of course, a claim for her injuries that are compensable under the Act are still subject to the WCC.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 2d 953 - TANKS EX REL. ESTATE OF WILLIS v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · 858 So. 2d 923 - Goodman v. Coast Materials Co.

2. “Dunn, Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation, (3d ed. 1982 & Supp.1984), notes that in order for a willful tort to be outside the exclusivity of the Act, the employee’s action must be done “with an actual intent to injure the employee. It is not enough to destroy the immunity that the employer’s conduct leading to the injury consists of aggravated negligence or even that the conduct goes beyond this to include such elements as knowingly permitting hazardous conditions to exist or willfully failing to furnish a safe place to work or knowingly ordering the employee to perform a dangerous job. [Footnote omitted].” Id. at § 22.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Franklin Corp. v. Tedford · 269 F. Supp. 2d 743 - Frye v. Airco, Inc.

3. “"[A] mere willful and malicious act is insufficient to give rise to the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.” There must be a finding of an "actual intent to injure.” Reckless or grossly negligent conduct is not enough to remove a claim from the exclusivity of the Act. Peaster v. David New Drilling Co., 642 So.2d 344, 348, 349 (Miss. 1994).'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 2d 953 - TANKS EX REL. ESTATE OF WILLIS v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · 269 F. Supp. 2d 743 - Frye v. Airco, Inc.