Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
246 S.E.2d 907 (W.Va. 1978)


Facts

James Mandolidis (plaintiff) was employed as a machine operator for Elkins Industries, Inc. (Elkins) (defendant), a furniture manufacturer. Mandolidis was injured while operating a 10-inch table saw, resulting in the loss of two of his fingers and part of his hand. Mandolidis sued Elkins in the Circuit Court of Randolph County. Mandolidis alleged that Elkins had acted with the deliberate intention to kill or injure Mandolidis within the meaning of West Virginia’s Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), and therefore was not immune from common-law actions. Specifically, Mandolidis alleged that Elkins had failed to secure the table saw with a safety guard in violation of industry standards and state and federal laws. According to Mandolidis, although federal inspectors had forbidden the use of the table saw without a safety guard, Elkins had continued to use the saw without a guard in order to improve production speed and increase profits. Mandolidis further alleged that Elkins had threatened to discharge Mandolidis if he refused to use the saw. Elkins denied the allegations and claimed that the foreman had told Mandolidis not to operate the saw by himself. Mandolidis denied this claim. Elkins moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Finding no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court ruled that Elkins lacked a deliberate intent to injure Mandolidis, and dismissed the complaint. Mandolidis appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (McGraw, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.