The rights and remedies granted in this chapter to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, his or her personal representative, parent, dependent, or next of kin, at common law, by statute, or otherwise on account of injury, loss of services, or death. Except as provided in this chapter, no employer shall be held civilly liable for personal injury to or death of the employer’s employee, for purposes of this chapter, whose injury or death is due to an accident or to an occupational disease while engaged in the service or business of the employer, the cause of which accident or occupational disease originates in the employment. In addition, immunity from civil liability for all causes of action except those based upon willful conduct shall also extend to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier of the employer; to a person, firm, association, trust, fund, or corporation responsible for servicing and payment of workers’ compensation claims for the employer; to an officer, director, agent, or employee of the carrier, person, firm, association, trust, fund, or corporation; to a labor union, an official, or representative thereof; to a governmental agency providing occupational safety and health services, or an employee of the agency; and to an officer, director, agent, or employee of the same employer, or his or her personal representative. Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve a person from criminal prosecution for failure or neglect to perform a duty imposed by law.
For the purpose of this section, a carrier, person, firm, association, trust, fund, or corporation shall include a company or a governmental agency making a safety inspection on behalf of a self-insured employer or its employees and an officer, director, agent, or employee of the company or a governmental agency.
(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7546; Code 1940, T. 26, §272; Acts 1975, 4th Ex. Sess., No. 86, p. 2729, §4; Acts 1984, 2nd Ex. Sess., No. 85-41, p. 44, §5; Acts 1992, No. 92-537, p. 1082, §13.)
Notes of Decisions
Goodyear Tire v. J.M. Tull Metals, 629 So. 2d 633 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 18× “First, Tull's obligation to procure insurance is separate from and independent of any obligation to indemnify.”
Patterson v. Augat Wiring Sys., Inc., 944 F. Supp. 1509 (M.D. Ala. 1996).
· cites it 11× “Augat’s Contentions In Counts Eight and Nine, the Plaintiff claims that Augat negligently supervised and retained Sweeney, resulting in injury to the Plaintiff.”
Busby v. Truswal Sys. Corp., 551 So. 2d 322 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 3× “" Truswal argues that § 25-5-52 and § 25-5-53 are a complete bar to the plaintiffs' claims against it.”
Ex Parte Shelby Cty. Health Care Auth., 850 So. 2d 332 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 2× “I further concur in the main opinion in its analysis of § 25-5-52 and § 25-5-53, Ala. Code 1975, and concur in the holdings as well, to the effect that these two Code sections embodying the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act do not bar Britt's tort claims…”
Reed v. Brunson, 527 So. 2d 102 (Ala. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Section 5 of the Act (§ 25-5-53) provides: "The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of said employee, his personal representative, parent, dependents or next of kin, at common law, by statute or otherwise on account of…”
Ex Parte Carlton, 867 So. 2d 332 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 2× “It points out that § 25-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, provides that the Workers' Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained by an employee in an on-the-job injury.”
Baptist Mem'l Hosp. v. Gosa, 686 So. 2d 1147 (Ala. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Workers' compensation immunity under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-53, is, as Wright argues, an affirmative defense.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Carlton, 867 So. 2d 320 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “) Although § 25-5-52 and the first sentence of § 25-5-53 could be argued to imply that the Act provides an injured employee's sole remedy against the world at large, the history and purpose of the Act indicate that those two statutes provide an injured employee's sole remedy…”
Rast Const., Inc. v. Peters, 689 So. 2d 781 (Ala. 1996).
· cites it 6× “Rast argues that the only remedy available to Peters was through a workers' compensation action pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-53, because, Rast argues, Richardson was an employee of Rast at the time of the accident.”
Read News Agency, Inc. v. Moman, 383 So. 2d 840 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “On the other hand, § 25-5-53, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, states: *846 The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies .”
Richardson v. PSB Armor, Inc., 682 So. 2d 438 (Ala. 1996).
· cites it 4× “That section provides, in pertinent part, that "immunity from civil liability for all causes of action except those based on willful conduct shall ... extend to the workers' compensation insurance carrier of the employer [or] to a .”
Wooley v. Shewbart, 569 So. 2d 712 (Ala. 1990).
· cites it 4× “As to that claim, the judgment is reversed and a judgment is rendered for the defendants.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.