assault exception in Minnesota

2004See McGowan, 527 N.W.2d at 834 ; Foley, 488 N.W.2d at 273 ; Bear v. Honeywell, Inc., 468 N.W.2d 546, 547-48 (Minn.1991) (stating that because a sexual assault was perpetrated by an unknown assailant whose motive cannot be known “it cannot be said that the injury was inflicted ‘because of personal reasons’ or was ‘directed against the employee as an employee’ ”).

1993See id. at 273; Bear v. Honeywell, Inc., 468 N.W.2d 546, 547 (Minn.1991).

2004See McGowan, 527 N.W.2d at 834 ; Foley, 488 N.W.2d at 273 ; Bear v. Honeywell, Inc., 468 N.W.2d 546, 547-48 (Minn.1991) (stating that because a sexual assault was perpetrated by an unknown assailant whose motive cannot be known “it cannot be said that the injury was inflicted ‘because of personal reasons’ or was ‘directed against the employee as an employee’ ”).

1993In the second case, Foley , the court relied on Bear to hold the assault exception inapplicable and concluded that a random sexual attack on an employee is, as a matter of law, not intended to injure the employee for personal reasons. 488 N.W.2d at 273 .

1995Cf. Thompson, 319 N.W.2d at 407 (holding prior statute that abated only intentional torts, but allowed personal injury claims based on negligence to survive unconstitutional); see also Dean v. Shirer, 547 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir.1976) (§ 1983 claim constituted injury to person because under facts, act was similar to assault); Anspach v. Tomkins Indus., Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1499, 1508-10 (D.Kan.1993) (infliction of emotional distress is personal injury claim under Kansas abatement statute), affd sub nom.

1995Cf. Thompson, 319 N.W.2d at 407 (holding prior statute that abated only intentional torts, but allowed personal injury claims based on negligence to survive unconstitutional); see also Dean v. Shirer, 547 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir.1976) (§ 1983 claim constituted injury to *630 person because under facts, act was similar to assault); Anspach v. Tomkins Indus., Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1499, 1508-10 (D.Kan.1993) (infliction of emotional distress is personal injury claim under Kansas abatement statute), aff'd sub nom.

1995Cf. Thompson, 319 N.W.2d at 407 (holding prior statute that abated only intentional torts, but allowed personal injury claims based on negligence to survive unconstitutional); see also Dean v. Shirer, 547 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir.1976) (§ 1983 claim constituted injury to person because under facts, act was similar to assault); Anspach v. Tomkins Indus., Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1499, 1508-10 (D.Kan.1993) (infliction of emotional distress is personal injury claim under Kansas abatement statute), affd sub nom.

1995Cf. Thompson, 319 N.W.2d at 407 (holding prior statute that abated only intentional torts, but allowed personal injury claims based on negligence to survive unconstitutional); see also Dean v. Shirer, 547 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir.1976) (§ 1983 claim constituted injury to *630 person because under facts, act was similar to assault); Anspach v. Tomkins Indus., Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1499, 1508-10 (D.Kan.1993) (infliction of emotional distress is personal injury claim under Kansas abatement statute), aff'd sub nom.

1995Cf. Thompson, 319 N.W.2d at 407 (holding prior statute that abated only intentional torts, but allowed personal injury claims based on negligence to survive unconstitutional); see also Dean v. Shirer, 547 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir.1976) (§ 1983 claim constituted injury to person because under facts, act was similar to assault); Anspach v. Tomkins Indus., Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1499, 1508-10 (D.Kan.1993) (infliction of emotional distress is personal injury claim under Kansas abatement statute), affd sub nom.

1995Cf. Thompson, 319 N.W.2d at 407 (holding prior statute that abated only intentional torts, but allowed personal injury claims based on negligence to survive unconstitutional); see also Dean v. Shirer, 547 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir.1976) (§ 1983 claim constituted injury to *630 person because under facts, act was similar to assault); Anspach v. Tomkins Indus., Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1499, 1508-10 (D.Kan.1993) (infliction of emotional distress is personal injury claim under Kansas abatement statute), aff'd sub nom.

2019See, e.g. , Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. , 684 N.W.2d 434 , 439 (Minn. 2004) (stating that "[w]e have narrowly construed the assault exception" when rejecting an employee's argument that an injury claim was excluded from workers' compensation coverage); Gunderson v. Harrington , 632 N.W.2d 695 , 703 (Minn. 2001) (requiring that an employer "consciously and deliberately intend[ ] to injure" an employee for the intentional-injury exception to apply); Kaess v. Armstrong Cork Co. , 403 N.W.2d 643 , 644 (Minn. 1987) ("Through the years we have upheld the legislative mandate of the exclusiv

2016Further, respondents rely on Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc., where the supreme court determined that the assault exception did not apply to injuries sustained by an employee from a “birthday spanking” with a paddle because the assault was not motivated by personal animosity, happened during work hours, was a workplace ritual, and was not “wholly unconnected” with the workplace. 684 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Minn. 2004).

2004In support of that proposition, appellant claims that: (1) the Fernandez subjective analysis predates the supreme court’s holding in McGowan and Meintsma ; (2) Fernandez does not address the “wholly unconnected” standard relied on by the supreme *385 court both before and after the Fernandez decision; and (3) McGowan did not cite Fernandez as having any precedential value and implicitly rejected the subjective, fact-based analysis. 3 Thus, appellant contends that to invoke the assault exception, an employee must demonstrate that the assailant was motivated by personal animosity toward the vict

2004First, we conclude that the test for determining whether the assault exception applies is to examine whether the assailant is motivated by “personal animosity toward his victim, arising from circumstances wholly unconnected with the employment.” McGowan, 527 N.W.2d at 834 .

2019See, e.g. , Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. , 684 N.W.2d 434 , 439 (Minn. 2004) (stating that "[w]e have narrowly construed the assault exception" when rejecting an employee's argument that an injury claim was excluded from workers' compensation coverage); Gunderson v. Harrington , 632 N.W.2d 695 , 703 (Minn. 2001) (requiring that an employer "consciously and deliberately intend[ ] to injure" an employee for the intentional-injury exception to apply); Kaess v. Armstrong Cork Co. , 403 N.W.2d 643 , 644 (Minn. 1987) ("Through the years we have upheld the legislative mandate of the exclusiv

2019See, e.g. , Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. , 684 N.W.2d 434 , 439 (Minn. 2004) (stating that "[w]e have narrowly construed the assault exception" when rejecting an employee's argument that an injury claim was excluded from workers' compensation coverage); Gunderson v. Harrington , 632 N.W.2d 695 , 703 (Minn. 2001) (requiring that an employer "consciously and deliberately intend[ ] to injure" an employee for the intentional-injury exception to apply); Kaess v. Armstrong Cork Co. , 403 N.W.2d 643 , 644 (Minn. 1987) ("Through the years we have upheld the legislative mandate of the exclusiv

1993Other cases have analyzed the assault exception by applying a fundamental question of whether the claimant was injured “not merely while he was at his employment, but because he was at his employment, in touch with associations and conditions inseparable from it.” Dufloth v. City of Monticello, 308 Minn. 451, 451 , 241 N.W.2d 645, 646 (1976); Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 314-15 , 103 N.W.2d 876, 882 (1960).

1993Other cases have analyzed the assault exception by applying a fundamental question of whether the claimant was injured “not merely while he was at his employment, but because he was at his employment, in touch with associations and conditions inseparable from it.” Dufloth v. City of Monticello, 308 Minn. 451, 451 , 241 N.W.2d 645, 646 (1976); Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 314-15 , 103 N.W.2d 876, 882 (1960).

1993Other cases have analyzed the assault exception by applying a fundamental question of whether the claimant was injured “not merely while he was at his employment, but because he was at his employment, in touch with associations and conditions inseparable from it.” Dufloth v. City of Monticello, 308 Minn. 451, 451 , 241 N.W.2d 645, 646 (1976); Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 314-15 , 103 N.W.2d 876, 882 (1960).

1993Other cases have analyzed the assault exception by applying a fundamental question of whether the claimant was injured “not merely while he was at his employment, but because he was at his employment, in touch with associations and conditions inseparable from it.” Dufloth v. City of Monticello, 308 Minn. 451, 451 , 241 N.W.2d 645, 646 (1976); Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 314-15 , 103 N.W.2d 876, 882 (1960).