West Virginia’s Intermediate Court of Appeals revived a worker’s deliberate intention claim against his supervisor, while leaving intact the dismissal of the lawsuit against the employer.
The ruling came in Stanley v. Structsure Scaffold Solutions, filed Dec. 4. Lonnie Stanley worked for Structsure when a dispute erupted over the timing of material deliveries to a jobsite.
The argument didn’t stay verbal, at least according to the complaint.
Stanley alleged his supervisor sat in the driver’s seat of a pickup truck with the passenger door open during the confrontation.
As the disagreement escalated, the supervisor allegedly began moving the truck, causing the open door to strike Stanley. Stanley claimed the act was intentional and meant to injure him.
He sued both the company and the supervisor, asserting a deliberate intention claim under West Virginia law. The defendants moved to dismiss, and a trial court agreed, throwing out the entire case. The appellate court split the outcome.
Judges said the claim against the supervisor should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage.
Under West Virginia workers’ compensation law, employers generally enjoy immunity from tort claims for injuries suffered by covered employees.
That protection usually extends to co-employees acting within the scope of the employer’s business.
There’s an exception. A co-employee can lose immunity if he acts with deliberate intention to injure another worker.
West Virginia statutes recognize two paths for deliberate intent claims. One involves proving a specific unsafe working condition through a detailed, five-factor test. The other, known as heightened deliberate intent, focuses on intent itself.
That heightened standard allows a worker to pursue a civil claim if the defendant acted with a consciously, subjectively, and deliberately formed intention to cause a specific injury or death.
Stanley made clear he relied only on that heightened deliberate intent theory. The appellate court said that mattered.
According to the opinion, Stanley’s allegations that his supervisor intentionally moved the truck in a way designed to strike him were enough, at this stage, to satisfy the legal threshold.
The court said the complaint properly set out allegations of deliberate intent and should be allowed to proceed against the supervisor.
The court said it would not disturb the dismissal of claims against Structsure Scaffold Solutions.
Stanley’s complaint did not allege facts showing the company itself acted with deliberate intention, and workers’ compensation immunity continued to shield it.
According to Beinsure analysts, the decision reinforces a narrow but meaningful line in workplace injury law. Employers often remain protected, but supervisors and co-employees can still face personal exposure when alleged conduct crosses from negligence into intentional harm.
