## Facts

- James Mandolidis worked as a machine operator for a furniture manufacturer.
- He was seriously injured while operating a 10-inch table saw, losing two fingers and part of his hand.
- The saw allegedly lacked a safety guard, contrary to industry standards and state and federal safety requirements.
- Federal safety inspectors allegedly directed that the saw not be used without a guard, but the employer allegedly continued operating it to increase production and profits.
- The employer allegedly threatened Mandolidis with discharge if he refused to operate the saw.
- Mandolidis and other plaintiffs in consolidated cases sued their employers in tort, alleging injuries or death resulted from the employers’ “deliberate intention” under W. Va. Code § 23-4-2, seeking to avoid workers’ compensation immunity.

## Issues

1. How should “deliberate intention” in W. Va. Code § 23-4-2 be construed for purposes of the exception to employer immunity under the workers’ compensation system?
2. Whether allegations that an employer knowingly exposed employees to a high probability of serious injury—despite safety laws and warnings—state a claim sufficient to reach a jury under § 23-4-2.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed judgments for the employers and remanded.
- The court rejected a narrow interpretation limiting “deliberate intention” to proof of a specific, subjective desire to injure.
- The court held that “deliberate intention” includes employer conduct that is willful, wanton, and reckless, where the employer consciously appreciates a high risk of serious injury or death and intentionally exposes an employee to that risk.
- Under this standard, the allegations in Mandolidis (and the other consolidated cases) were sufficient to create a jury question; summary judgment or dismissal was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation immunity under W. Va. Code § 23-2-6 does not bar a tort action where injury or death results from the employer’s “deliberate intention” under W. Va. Code § 23-4-2.
- “Deliberate intention” is not confined to an actual, specific intent to harm; it can be shown by willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct.
- A viable deliberate-intent claim may be supported by allegations that the employer had a conscious, subjective realization of a high degree of risk of serious harm and nevertheless deliberately exposed the employee to that risk.
- When facts plausibly support willful exposure to a high probability of serious harm, the question of deliberate intention is for the jury rather than resolution as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court expanded the deliberate-intent exception to workers’ compensation immunity to cover egregious workplace misconduct involving conscious appreciation of a high risk of serious harm and intentional exposure of employees to that risk, requiring that such claims generally proceed to a factfinder when adequately supported by allegations and evidence.


Mandolidis v. Elkins Indus., Inc., 246 S.E.2d 907 (W. Va. 1978)