Kandt v. Evans

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that, under section 8-41-102, \[r]ecovery under the [WCA] is meant to be exclusive and to preclude employee tort actions against an employer\
• observing that the WCA creates a “quid pro quo by which the employer gives up his normal defenses and assumes automatic liability, while the employee gives up his right to common-law verdicts” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the WCA quid pro quo by which an employer gives up its normal defenses and assumes liability in exchange for the employee’s giving up common-law verdicts extends as well to co-employees who are also involved in this compromise of rights
• “Recovery under the Act is meant to be exclusive and to preclude employee tort actions against an employer.”
• the 1975 amendments “reinforce the conclusion that intentional wrongs arising out of the course of employment are covered” by the Act
• noting that the WCA quid pro quo by which an employer gives up its normal defenses and assumes liability in exchange for the employee's giving up common-law verdicts extends as well to co-employees who are also involved in this compromise of rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).