Sanford v.

Brasher
Supreme Court of Alabama, 1989
Justice Shores:

Facts: On February 27, 1986, Rosita Sanford, an employee of Oxford Industries, Inc. in Fayette, was on
duty at her workplace at the time of an incident. She had just finished sew-burring a bundle of jacket
sleeves, and stood up from her work stool to put up the bundle. As she was sitting back down, a
coworker of hers, Jeff Brasher, pulled her seat from underneath her as a prank. Sanford fell to the floor
and was injured as a result. Sanford filed suit against Brasher, plant manager Larry Darnell, and cutting-
department supervisor James Weeks. Both Darnell and Weeks were elsewhere in the plant when the
incident occurred. The male employees were typically the perpetrators of these types of pranks and
horseplay at the plant and no one had been injured by any of these previous pranks or horseplay. In
addition, none of the employees in the past had been disciplined for them. No animosity or ill-will
reportedly existed between Sanford and Brasher, and Brasher testified that this was only meant to be a
joke and never intended or Sanford to fall or be hurt. Darnell and Weeks both claimed that neither had
any participation in the incident and did not encourage behavior that would involve one employee
injuring another. The Circuit Court in Fayette County ruled in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

Issue 1: Does this complaint state an actionable claim against a co-employee under Section 25-5-11 of
the Code of 1975?

Issue 2: Did the defendant exhibit “willful conduct,” which, under Section 25-5-11, would enable the
plaintiff to recover against her co-employee?

Holding 1: No

Holding 2: No

Rationale 1: Action filed on behalf of injured employees against other employees claiming damages in
excess of workers’ compensation statutes based on negligent or wanton conduct that resulted in injury
is damaging to the effort to retain current businesses and attract new businesses to Alabama and is
contrary to the legislature’s intent to create a comprehensive workers’ compensation plan. This creates
a disruptive effect on the relationship between employees, supervisors, and managers. There is no
evidence that suggests that allowing such claims to prevail would have any impact on the reduction or
severity on workplace injuries.

Rationale 2: In order to prove “willful conduct,” the defendant must have set out to purposefully,
intentionally, or by design injure someone. By doing this, his actions must have proximately caused the
injury in which the plaintiff claims. There is no evidence that the defendant engaged in “willful conduct.”
In addition, the plaintiff was unable to explain why the defendant might want to intentionally injure her,
nor show that a reasonable man in the position of the defendant would be “substantially certain” that
the actions made by him would result in such an injury. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling in favor o the
defendant shall be affirmed.