Battista v. Chrysler Corp.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
O’HARA, Judge.
The issue presented in this action is whether or not claims of defamation and intentional infliction of mental distress are solely within the ambit of the Delaware Workmen’s Compensation Act, thus barring the common law actions filed in this Court by employee Elio Battista (“Employee”) against employer Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”). In addition to refuting the merits of Employee’s tort claims, Chrysler asserts that Employee’s exclusive remedy lies in a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation law. The Court agrees that such Act precludes a common law suit for intentional…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Ebersole v. LowengrubSupreme Court of Delaware · 1962
- Spence v. FunkSupreme Court of Delaware · 1978
- Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Foley v. Polaroid Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Kofron v. Amoco Chemicals Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Kuwik v. Starmark Star Marketing & Administration, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1993
- Lord v. SouderSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
- Livitsanos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Owens v. Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2012
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.