Truman Arnold Companies v. Miller County Circuit Court
2017 Ark. 94
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Teresa Jones, a former employee, alleged she was sexually assaulted by store manager John Kelly at a Truman Arnold Companies (TAC) convenience-store carwash and sued TAC for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.
- Jones previously filed and nonsuited related claims in state court, then litigated federal claims (including sexual harassment and retaliation) in federal court; federal court granted summary judgment to TAC on federal/state harassment/retaliation claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state negligent-supervision/retention claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
- Jones filed the negligent-hiring/retention/supervision complaint in Miller County Circuit Court; TAC moved to dismiss based on the exclusivity provision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105).
- The circuit court denied TAC’s motion, reasoning Jones’s alleged injuries were primarily mental (and thus not compensable under § 11-9-113(a)(1) absent a physical injury or crime-of-violence exception) and finding insufficient allegations to decide the crime-of-violence exception, but reserving factual determinations.
- TAC petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition, arguing the Workers’ Compensation Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the Act applies (i.e., jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction).
- The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding the Commission—not the circuit court—has exclusive, original jurisdiction to resolve factual questions about the Act’s applicability where the issue is factual or mixed (not one-sided intentional torts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court may decide if the Workers’ Compensation Act bars Jones’s tort claims | Jones: her claims arise from intentional tort/mental injury not covered by the Act, so court jurisdiction is proper | TAC: Act’s exclusivity applies; factual questions about whether injuries "arose out of" employment must be decided by the Commission | Court: Commission has exclusive, original jurisdiction to decide factual questions about applicability; circuit court acted without jurisdiction |
| Whether Jones’s claims sound in negligence (affecting intentional-tort exception) | Jones: alleged sexual assault supports application of intentional-tort exception | TAC: complaint alleges negligent hiring/supervision/retention, not intentional tort by employer | Court: claims plead negligence against employer and thus do not trigger intentional-tort exception as a matter of law |
| Whether Jones’s mental injuries are compensable under § 11-9-113(a)(1) absent physical injury or crime-of-violence | Jones: injuries are from sexual assault (may be physical/crime of violence) | TAC: Act may cover negligence-caused physical injury leading to mental injury; factual determination required | Court: causal relationship between physical and mental injury is factual; Commission must resolve these facts |
| Whether the crime-of-violence exception can be resolved as a matter of law | Jones: alleges assault which could be crime of violence | TAC: sexual assault may be crime of violence as a matter of law | Court: declined to decide as a legal matter because factual inquiry remains; Commission must determine applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises, 334 Ark. 12 (establishes Commission’s exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine factual questions of applicability of Workers’ Compensation Act)
- Int’l Paper Co. v. Clark Cnty. Cir. Ct., 375 Ark. 127 (explains jurisdiction-to-determine-jurisdiction doctrine and grants prohibition when circuit court intrudes on Commission’s factfinding)
- Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Pope Cnty. Cir. Ct., 2014 Ark. 506 (applies VanWagoner to bar circuit-court factual determinations about Act applicability)
- Reynolds Metal Co. v. Cir. Ct. of Clark Cnty., 2013 Ark. 287 (discusses writ of prohibition when lower court lacks jurisdiction over matters for Commission)
- Saine v. Comcast Cablevision of Ark., Inc., 354 Ark. 492 (clarifies that employer negligence claims do not satisfy intentional-tort exception)