Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Compensation Act’s exclusivity provisions precluded employee, who suffered emotional distress as a consequence of false imprisonment, false arrest, or malicious prosecution in the workplace, from suing for civil damages against his former employer
• noting that lack of probable cause is an element of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims
• stating that intentional torts committed upon an employee by a co-employee are considered “accidental” from an employer’s viewpoint, where the employer did not direct or authorize the co-employee to commit the tort
• considering whether a plaintiff that brought an intentional tort claim rather than a negligence claim can do so. The court held that the exclusive remedy provisions of the IWCA do not bar employees from bringing intentional tort claims against employees for injuries
• “management’s knowledge coupled with lack of follow-up action is equivalent to express authorization of injurious conduct”
• IWCA’s exclusivity provisions bar employees from bringing common law actions against their employers based solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).