Gerrish v. Savard

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendant was exercising managerial prerogatives in deciding that a piece of machinery could operate without a certain safety feature
• explaining that the Act is a public policy compromise whereby workers receive a quick and certain recovery for workplace injuries based on strict liability, but in return, the compensation is a fixed amount and workers cannot sue in tort
• third-party exception to exclusivity may in certain circumstances apply to an employer if employer acts in capacity of co-employee in negligently causing accident
• workers’ compensation exclusivity does not prohibit employee’s action against co-worker for negligence outside parameters of employer’s nondelegable duty to maintain safe workplace
• ‘Wisconsin rule” examines nature of duty involved to determine whether negligent act was committed in capacity of employer or whether there is co-employee liability
• “To establish co-employee liability, the plaintiff must show that there was a personal duty owed the plaintiff apart from the nondelegable duties of the employer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).