employer to establish defense in Tennessee

2026Turning to the first defense, the Supreme Court gave a four-part test for willful misconduct in Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities, 368 S.W.3d 442, 453 (Tenn. 2012).

2020Also, Employer’s witnesses testified that discipline for violations of Employer’s lockout/tagout policy was applied consistently, beginning with a three-day suspension for the first offense and termination for a second offense. 3 Citing Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities, 368 S.W.3d 442, 453 (Tenn. 2012), the trial court identified four elements necessary for an employer to establish a defense based upon an employee’s willful misconduct or willful failure or refusal to use a safety device as contemplated in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-110(a) and (b): (1) the employee’s actual

2000See Rule 8.03, Tenn.R.Civ.P. 1 Our research discloses that although there are numerous Tennessee cases pertaining to the more general defense of “willful misconduct,” 2 there are relatively few Tennessee cases considering the issue of an employee’s alleged willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance. 3 Cordell v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co., 173 Tenn. 596 , 121 S.W.2d 970 (1938); Knoxville Power & Light Co. v. Barnes, 156 Tenn. 184 , 299 S.W. 772 (1927); overruled in part by, Standard Glass Co. v. Wallace, 189 Tenn. 213, 218 , 225 S.W.2d 35,37 (Tenn.1949); Nashville, C. & St.

2000See Rule 8.03, Tenn.R.Civ.P. 1 Our research discloses that although there are numerous Tennessee cases pertaining to the more general defense of “willful misconduct,” 2 there are relatively few Tennessee cases considering the issue of an employee’s alleged willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance. 3 Cordell v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co., 173 Tenn. 596 , 121 S.W.2d 970 (1938); Knoxville Power & Light Co. v. Barnes, 156 Tenn. 184 , 299 S.W. 772 (1927); overruled in part by, Standard Glass Co. v. Wallace, 189 Tenn. 213, 218 , 225 S.W.2d 35,37 (Tenn.1949); Nashville, C. & St.

2000See Rule 8.03, Tenn.R.Civ.P. 1 Our research discloses that although there are numerous Tennessee cases pertaining to the more general defense of “willful misconduct,” 2 there are relatively few Tennessee cases considering the issue of an employee’s alleged willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance. 3 Cordell v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co., 173 Tenn. 596 , 121 S.W.2d 970 (1938); Knoxville Power & Light Co. v. Barnes, 156 Tenn. 184 , 299 S.W. 772 (1927); overruled in part by, Standard Glass Co. v. Wallace, 189 Tenn. 213, 218 , 225 S.W.2d 35,37 (Tenn.1949); Nashville, C. & St.

2000See Rule 8.03, Tenn.R.Civ.P. 1 Our research discloses that although there are numerous Tennessee cases pertaining to the more general defense of “willful misconduct,” 2 there are relatively few Tennessee cases considering the issue of an employee’s alleged willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance. 3 Cordell v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co., 173 Tenn. 596 , 121 S.W.2d 970 (1938); Knoxville Power & Light Co. v. Barnes, 156 Tenn. 184 , 299 S.W. 772 (1927); overruled in part by, Standard Glass Co. v. Wallace, 189 Tenn. 213, 218 , 225 S.W.2d 35,37 (Tenn.1949); Nashville, C. & St.

1991(Emphasis added.) As this Court pointed out in Overall v. Southern Subaru Star, Inc., 545 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tenn.1976), in order to invoke the intoxication defense, the “employer has the burden of establishing proximate cause.” However, we also pointed out that the employer is not required to prove that “the employee’s intoxication was the sole cause.” We interpret the statute’s words “due to intoxication” to require that intoxication be a cause of the injury.