Those statutes only apply if the injury is a result of normal job functions and the Company isn't negligent. That's not the case here.
I hate to disagree, fosse, but your understanding of workers' compensation laws is just not accurate. An employer's "negligence" does not allow an injured employee to escape the exclusive remedy provision of workers' compensation statutes. It has nothing to do with "normal job functions." Rather, only if an employee is injured as a result of the employer's "intentional tort" may an employee maintain a civil cause of action. In most jurisdictions, an employee must prove that the employer made a "conscious decision" to injure the employee and then took "deliberate action" to achieve that injury. That intentional tort is inferred when the employer had "actual knowledge" of the certainty of injury but does nothing to prevent it. This is a completely different legal standard than mere negligence and why I stated initially that it is a very difficult (some would argue nearly impossible) standard for injured employees to meet. Of course, it all depends on the proofs and the monorail driver's family is apparently going to present facts they believe meet this very high burden of proof.
Won't happen. This will not be dismissed.
Again, it is a very difficult burden for injured workers to meet and it is not uncommon, even with more egregious facts, for civil cases to be dismissed. State legislatures enacted workers' compensation laws for precisely this reason: to provide an efficient, consistent and exclusive remedy for injured workers, and to free the court systems from the inordinate number of lawsuits that historically were filed prior to these laws' establishment.
You couldn't just say it was Disney's Answer to the Complaint, like a normal lawyer would? But I agree that is common course for a Company to flatly deny all counts in a complaint. However, you may be right that they may try to use the supposed applicable statute. The article mentions they admitted to all the events leading up to the accident, which means they are probably blaiming the people involved. However, those people worked for them, and therefore their actions are the Company's actions.
A "normal lawyer" understands what a responsive pleading is, fosse. The article from the Sentinel, as I think we can all agree, is short on facts and specifics. I haven't seen the responsive pleading filed by Disney. It may not have been an answer. The denials may have been contained in a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment. Simply because an employer's workers engaged in negligent behavior does not impart liability on the employer, so "their actions" are not "the Company's actions" unless the above-mentioned burden is met by the plaintiff.
This isn't going to be dismissed. The OSHA report clearly states it was Disney's fault. It can be entered into court as factual evidence, and as a government document, it is considered unimpeachable. Therefore, Disney can't challenge the findings (i.e., no one from OSHA will be required to testify). The fact of the matter is the death of Austin was a result of incompetent employees and Disney's standard operating procedure. Since Austin was cleared of any wrongdoing in the OSHA report, the other employees are treated as Disney itself. Their actions are the Company's actions, and Disney is liable.
This is simply not a correct statement of the law. The OSHA report, in fact all evidence in any case, can always be excluded from admission if the trial court deems it to be more prejudicial than probative; in fact, the 11th Circuit (which includes Florida) has ruled that an OSHA report's legal conclusions and opinions are excludable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 803 on precisely this basis (if deemed by the trial court to be untrustworthy for any number of reasons). In short, the OSHA findings are not dispositive of the civil litigation and may not even be admissible in the proceeding.
Either way, I'm surprised they would ask for a jury trial. Does Florida require a unanimous jury for civil trials? If so, Disney has to convince only one juror they aren't at fault. A judge, based on everything we know, would find for the Plaintiff (most likely). But I agree that this won't go to trial.
Typically, a request for whether to conduct a jury or non-jury trial is made by the plaintiff, not the defendant. It is possible that the Sentinel article saw a jury demand in the file and concluded that Disney had requested it.
However, based on what was in the article, I find Disney's arguments a little disingenuous. They admitted to the series of events that led to the accident, but still claim they aren't at fault. That's like me shooting someone with my gun and then saying it's not my fault he got shot. Sure, I can argue he was about to attack, but Disney can't have any such claim. The events leading up to the accident were the direct results of its own employees. Therefore they are liable.
Disney has not admitted facts necessary to establish the intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation statute defense. Simply admitting to facts leading up to the accident in no way establishes liability; moreover, its defense to the cause of action may be just that: our employees engaged in, at best, negligent conduct during a succession of unfortunate, "perfect storm" events. That negligent conduct bolsters Disney's defense that it did not make a "conscious decision" to harm the monorail driver or otherwise have the "actual knowledge" that the harm would occur - something that needs to be present to usurp the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation statute.
