## Facts

- James Sitzman worked as a ranch laborer for Jake Schumaker; their working relationship was hostile and included repeated verbal abuse.
- While working, Schumaker became angry at Sitzman’s responses to routine questions and escalated the confrontation.
- Schumaker struck Sitzman in the face; Sitzman pushed Schumaker to the ground.
- Schumaker then armed himself with a metal pipe and, as Sitzman attempted to walk away, struck Sitzman on the head multiple times, rendering him unconscious.
- Sitzman suffered severe, life-altering head injuries, including a fractured skull.
- Sitzman applied for and received temporary total disability and medical benefits under the Montana Workers’ Compensation Act.
- James Sitzman sued Schumaker in tort for damages from the assault; Barbara Sitzman filed a derivative claim for loss of consortium and related harms.

## Issues

1. Whether Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-411 (workers’ compensation exclusivity) bars an employee’s tort suit against an employer for an intentional physical assault arising from the employment relationship when the employee has received workers’ compensation benefits.
2. Whether the spouse’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim is likewise barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Schumaker and remanded for trial.
- The court held that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision did not bar tort claims based on the employer’s intentional assault.
- Receipt of workers’ compensation benefits did not, by itself, extinguish the employee’s intentional-tort claim or the spouse’s derivative claim.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity applies primarily to work-related industrial accidents and does not immunize an employer from civil liability for intentional physical assaults on an employee.
- An employer’s deliberate attack with the purpose of inflicting harm falls outside the ordinary risks contemplated by the workers’ compensation bargain.
- Acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not necessarily constitute a waiver of common-law remedies for an intentional tort by the employer.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court permitted an employee and spouse to pursue tort damages for an employer’s intentional assault, ruling that workers’ compensation exclusivity does not shield employers from liability for deliberate acts of personal violence, even when compensation benefits have been paid.


Sitzman v. Schumaker, 718 P.2d 657 (Mont. 1986)