By Judge Josh Baker, Nashville

Ahh, Valentine’s Day!

A day to honor the ones we cherish and shower them with gifts and affection. Maybe breakfast in bed, flowers sent to the office to make their office mates jealous (really no other reason to send them there), a romantic dinner, or just extra time celebrating love of all varieties. 

Although the history of this celebrated anniversary of red, pink, and chocolate has many roots, the best-known seed for holiday stems from religious martyrdom—so I guess death begets love?

Anyway, as the stories go, St. Valentine of Rome and St. Valentin in Terni were both executed by the Roman Empire in the 3rd Century for ministering to Christians, which included performing weddings for Roman soldiers. From their martyrdom, the Feast of Saint Valentine’s began in the 8^th Century on February 14^th and is still celebrated by some today.

However, it would be more than a millennium later before the association with romantic love, and its more modern materialistic celebratory format of hearts and candy, took hold. In the 14^th and 15th Centuries, “courtly love” was associated with the holiday, and three centuries later, English couples began the tradition of expressing love to their sweeties through gifts of flowers and confections. Finally, Mark and Hall got into the Valentine’s Day business bringing us up to today.

You’re probably now asking yourself why you just read those three paragraphs on a workers’ compensation blog. The answer is easy and less romantic: because I wrote them.

Also, they are a lead-in to a workers’ compensation claim that at least touched on this day of hearts and candy, only in a more frightening way.

In Columbia, S. C., the employee, Tina Loges, worked for Mack Trucks, a semi-truck company. Eventually, Loges joined a carpool with other employees including Steve Grove. After about four or five weeks of sharing a ride, Loges quit the carpool because Grove expressed romantic interest, which was unrequited.

After Loges turned Grove down, he began to harass her at work, calling her various vulgar names. He also accused her of adultery and of having AIDs. Later he tried to run her car off the road.

Despite trying to kill her with his car, Grove continued to pursue Loges. Then on Valentine’s Day, she received flowers from an anonymous admirer, whom Loges claimed was Grove. For his part, Groves denied sending the flowers.

Loges reported the harassment to her supervisor, who disciplined Groves several times and assured her that the harassment would end. Whether the discipline was effective is unclear. No matter the effect, Loges eventually filed suit against Mack Trucks alleging negligent supervision of Grove resulting in assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and slander.

Asserting that all the allegations occurred either on Mack Trucks’ property, enroute to the property, or were otherwise associated with her work for Mack Trucks, the company moved for summary judgment citing the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation as her only recourse.

The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court agreed, dismissing all causes of action except slander. The court wrote, “Recovery under the Act is the exclusive means of settling personal claims [that] come under the Act. However, only actions arising from personal injury or death are barred,” thus, her cause of action for slander continued.

If you’d like to know more, you can read the whole case at Loges v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 417 S.E.2d 538 (S.C. 1992).

Closer to home, Tennessee’s workers’ compensation law similarly provides the exclusive remedy for an employee who is injured during the course and scope of his or her employment, meaning the employee is precluded from seeking tort damages for the injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-108.

This provision has been part of the law since its very beginning in 1919. Despite being a longstanding principle, cases emerge occasionally regarding its application.

Most recently, the Tennessee Court of Appeals invoked the exclusive remedy in Swindle v. Goodlow, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). In the case, a worker injured on a construction site sued the general contractor, who denied being his employer. He attempted to file a tort claim, but the trial and appellate courts held it was a workers’ compensation claim.

So, for all your workers’ compensation nerds reading this blog, I am sure your “significant other” (don’t say that to their face) would appreciate you talking about these cases at Valentine’s dinner. You’re welcome!

Have a wonderful Valentine’s Day!