Could Oil Worker Caught in Explosion Drill Employer for Money Damages?

What Do You Think?

An employer may face significant liability if a worker can show the employer intentionally injured him. That’s because intentional injuries are generally not considered workplace accidents whose sole remedy is workers’ compensation. 

In a recent case involving an oil refinery worker, a  manager allegedly told the worker to manually reset a circuit breaker of a reverse osmosis machine located in a trailer. 

According to the worker, the company:

• Knew or should have known the machine was operating unsafely because it lacked a necessary transformer.
• Knew the machine was overheating with increasing frequency, triggering alarms multiple times per week.
• Responded to the alarms by raising the temperature threshold. 
• Intentionally concealed the dangers when it ordered him to manually reset the breaker.

On the day in question, the worker opened the door to the circuit breaker panel and an explosion occurred. 

The employee and his wife then sued the employer for tort, seeking money damages.

Got questions about your state's exclusive remedy rule? Get Simply Research

The workers’ compensation act’s exclusivity rule prevents an injured worker from suing his employer for negligence. A worker can, however, sue the employer for intentionally injuring him.

The employer asked the court to dismiss the case based on the exclusivity rule.

Could the worker sue employer for an intentional tort?

A. No. Because the incident was a workplace accident, the employee’s sole remedy was workers’ compensation.

B. Yes. He claimed the employer knew of the danger and concealed that danger from him when it told him to rest the machine.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in McGuckin v. PBF Energy, Inc., No. N25C-01-392 CLS (Del. Super. Ct. 08/05/25), which held that the employee alleged enough facts to show intent to avoid dismissal at this stage.

The court noted that an intentional act is not an accident and therefore is not subject to the exclusivity rule. But to avoid having his intentional tort case dismissed, the injured worker must allege specific facts showing the employer deliberately intended to bring about the injury.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that the employee merely repackaged negligence allegations with intentional conduct labels. Specifically, it noted that the injured worker asserted that the employer knew or should have known the machines were unsafe, addressed those dangers in a way that allowed the danger to continue, and deliberately concealed the dangers by instructing him to manually reset the overheating equipment.

The court refused to throw out the case.

Share This Article: