Did Shovel Clobbering by Owner’s Son Let Electrician sue Company for Negligence?

What Do You Think?

If an employee attacks another during work, can the victim sue the employer for negligence? If there's workers’ compensation coverage, the answer to that question is generally “no.” But what if the employer knew the coworker was dangerous and failed to mention it or deliberately hid that information? Those were the claims in a recent case involving an electrician who was hit over the head with a shovel.

The victim in that case worked for an electrical contracting company, sometimes alongside the owner’s son. They had worked together for several years. The son sometimes got upset when the employee told him what to do, but their arguments never became “heated.”  The son had never been physically violent or threatening at work. He had been hospitalized multiple times for mental health reasons, however. He was taking anti-psychotic medication. 

One day, while the employee was working on an electrical panel, and apparently without provocation, the son hit him over the head with a shovel multiple times. The employee lost consciousness and was later admitted to the hospital.

The injured worker sued the company for negligently supervising the attacker. The owner got the case thrown out at the trial court level based on the workers’ compensation act’s exclusivity rule. That rule provides that workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for employees injured in the course and scope of employment.

An employee can establish an exception to that rule by showing that the injury: 

• Was not accidental;
• Did not arise from his or her employment; 
• Was not received during the course of employment: or 
• Was not compensable under the Act. 

The employee in this case argued that the incident was not an “accident” because the owner intentionally concealed the danger.

Could the employee sue the company for negligence?

A. No. The son had never been threatening or violent at work or toward the injured employee.

B. Yes. The owner’s son was acting intentionally. Thus, the incident was not an “accident” for purposes of the workers’ compensation statute.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Kordas v. Bob’s All Bright Electric, Inc., No. 3-24-0482 (Ill. Ct. App. 09/03/25), which held that the exclusive remedy provision barred the employee’s negligence lawsuit.

Looking for the rules on exclusive remedy in your state? Look to Simply Research

Of course, one could argue that the attack, from the point of view of the owner’s son, was intentional and thus not an accident. But the question was whether the company acted intentionally. From the employer’s point of view, if the employer did not direct or expressly authorize an assault at work, then the assault was just another accident.

Here, there was no evidence that the company committed, or expressly authorized the son to commit an intentional tort. 

“Carelessly and recklessly allowing an employee to work unsupervised on a jobsite and to work with other employees when the employer knew or should have known of his dangerous propensities are not intentional acts,” the court wrote.

Further, there was no evidence that the company knew the son was violent and intentionally concealed his violent tendencies from its employees. The fact that the son had never shown any violent tendencies at work prior to the attack indicated otherwise. While the owner may have known his son was taking the medication and had been hospitalized for mental health reasons, there was no evidence he knew his son was violent or that he intentionally kept that information to himself.

Share This Article: