Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Rainer v. Union Carbide Corporation

402 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2005)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

Rainer v. Union Carbide Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

402 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2005)

Facts

The Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (PDGP) was a uranium processing plant owned by General Electric (GE) (defendant). It was operated by Union Carbide Corporation (Union) (defendant), Martin Marietta (Martin) (defendant), and Lockheed Martin Utilities Services (Lockheed Martin) (defendant). As of 1959, PDGP processed uranium and yielded hazardous byproducts in quantities “well beyond the amount considered safe for a plant the size of PDGP.” The plant employed 1,800 employees at any given time. The lower-level employees were kept ignorant about the presence of such high amounts of hazardous byproducts. Additionally, plant owners and operators frequently disregarded workers’ safety. Rainer (plaintiff), an employee, and three other employees brought suit against the owner and operators based on their exposure to harmful substances at PDGP. However, at the time of suit, no plaintiffs displayed any signs of actual physical harm. The district court dismissed the claims brought by all plaintiffs on the grounds that no present harm had been shown, and that the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for claims brought by employees against their employers. The act typically operated to exclude employers from other forms of liability once they provided compensation to employees. Rainer and the other plaintiffs argued their case fell under an exception to the act which reserved a cause of action to a worker who is injured “through the deliberate intention of his employer to produce such injury or death.” A “deliberate intention” included “conduct undertaken with the knowledge that it will produce a certain result, or is substantially certain to do so.” All plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their case.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gilman, Circuit Judge)

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 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership