## Facts

- Michael D. Kittell was employed by Vermont Weatherboard, Inc.
- Kittell alleged he was assigned, inexperienced and without instruction or warnings, to operate a multiple-saw end-trim machine.
- He alleged the employer had removed safety devices from the machine.
- While he operated the saw, a splinter flew into his eye and penetrated his head, causing severe injury.
- Kittell claimed the injury resulted solely from the employer’s wanton and wilful acts and omissions, but did not allege the employer specifically intended to injure him.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that an employer’s wanton and wilful misconduct caused a workplace injury place the claim outside Vermont’s Workmen’s Compensation Act, permitting a common-law tort action.
2. Whether such harm remains a “personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment,” triggering the Act’s exclusive-remedy bar.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the tort complaint.
- The court held the injury was “accidental” under the Act because the complaint did not allege a genuine, specific intent by the employer to injure the employee.
- Because the injury fell within the Act’s coverage, workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, barring the common-law suit.

## Legal Principles

- Workplace injuries are treated as “accidental” for workers’ compensation purposes even when the employer’s conduct is grossly negligent, reckless, wanton, or wilful, so long as the employer lacks a specific intent to injure.
- The workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy provision bars common-law tort actions for injuries within the Act’s scope.
- Statutory direction to construe the Act to effect its purpose and maintain uniformity supports a broad reading of coverage and exclusivity.
- Only a genuine intentional injury (an act done with actual intent to harm the employee) falls outside the workers’ compensation system and permits a direct tort claim against the employer.

## Conclusion

The court held that allegations of wanton and wilful workplace misconduct, including removal of safety devices and failure to train, do not avoid workers’ compensation exclusivity absent an allegation that the employer acted with a specific intent to injure the employee.


Kittell v. Vt. Weatherboard, Inc., 417 A.2d 926 (Vt. 1980)