Miss. High Court Upholds $7.5 Million Intentional-Tort Award

The Mississippi Supreme Court has affirmed a $7.5 million toxic-tort judgment to four employees of a furniture manufacturer, ruling that the workers' claims were not precluded by the exclusivity provision of the state's workers' compensation law.

In an en banc opinion written by Justice Michael Randolph, the state high court said the workers' claims satisfied the law's intentional-tort provision, which allows a worker to pursue tort claims against an employer for an injury "caused by his employer's willful and malicious act."

Franklin Corp. used a product called Soft Seam adhesive in its production line beginning in 1999, according to court records. Material safety data sheets given to the company disclosed that Soft Seam contained a neurotoxin called propyl bromide. The data sheet also warned that the product can be an irritant to the upper respiratory tract and should be used only with adequate ventilation and/or vapor type respirator.

Pauline Tedford and three other glue line workers sued Franklin Corp. for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the Calhoun County Circuit Court.

They said they spent hours a day using a pressurized spray system to apply Soft Seam enclosed in wooden spray booths that were draped in plastic.

The workers said management ignored their complaints that they needed ventilation and protective gear and that the fumes were making them dizzy.

They also said the safety data sheets were ripped off drums containing Soft Seam so employees could not see the product warnings.

All the plaintiffs were hospitalized or put on medical leave between January and April 2004 due to numbness, nausea and other symptoms.

The complaint says Franklin knew they were being exposed to high levels of propyl bromide but refused to protect them from the fumes.

As part of pretrial proceedings, Franklin moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the claims falls under the workers' compensation law.

The trial court denied the motion, finding that the workers satisfied the law's intentional-tort exception.

After a three-week trial, the jury awarded the workers $1.9 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages. The judge denied Franklin's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The judge later reduced the punitive damage award to $5 million and ordered Franklin to pay a total of $7.5 million, including post judgment interest.

Franklin appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the workers' compensation law precluded the workers' claims and that the trial judge should have granted the company's JNOV motion.

The high court disagreed, ruling that considerable evidence supported the jury's verdict.

Given the considerable testimony by Franklin employees and management, the trial judge correctly denied the JNOV motion, the Supreme Court held.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.