Mead v. Western Slate, Inc.
Vermont Supreme Court
848 A.2d 257 (2004)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Martin Mead (plaintiff), an experienced mechanic, sawyer, and driller, worked at a quarry owned by Western Slate, Inc. (defendant). Mead noticed that a rock fall had recently occurred and notified Jeffrey N. Harrison (defendant), co-owner of Western Slate, who oversaw quarry operations. Harrison did not instruct Mead to stop working. Mead continued working, and, to his surprise, a second rock fall occurred, injuring him. Mead collected workers’-compensation benefits and sued Western Slate and Harrison, alleging that they had the specific intent to injure him. The jury was instructed that Mead could establish specific intent by proving either (1) that Western States and Harrison had the purpose or desire to injure him or (2) that Western States and Harrison knew to a substantial certainty that their actions or inactions would injure Mead. The jury found that both Western Slate and Harrison knew to a substantial certainty that Mead would be injured if he continued to work and awarded Mead damages. Western Slate and Harrison appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.