The injuries suffered by a Dunkin’ cashier stabbed by an irate customer fall within the exclusive remedy provision of Georgia’s workers compensation system, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
In reversing a trial court, the three-judge panel in Peachstate Concessionaires Inc. v. Bryant found that plaintiff Mekiah Bryant’s claims against Peachstate, which owns the store where she worked, were barred because the assault stemmed from her performance of work duties, not from any personal dispute.
The court ordered summary judgment for the employer and remanded the case with direction to enter judgment accordingly.
Ms. Bryant was working the evening shift on Dec. 5, 2020, when Marquavis Goolsby and a companion came to the drive-through. She told them certain menu items were unavailable. According to court records, Mr. Goolsby and the companion returned to the store lobby about 10 minutes later, where Mr. Goolsby complained about Ms. Bryant’s demeanor and demanded to see a manager. After a verbal exchange, Ms. Bryant stepped from behind the counter to address him, at which point Mr. Goolsby stabbed her in the arm.
Ms. Bryant sued Peachstate in 2022, alleging premises liability, including negligent security; and negligent infliction of emotional distress and seeking attorney fees. The trial court granted Peachstate summary judgment on her emotional distress and fee claims but allowed the premises liability allegation to proceed, finding that being stabbed by a customer was not a risk “reasonably incident” to her employment.
The appellate panel disagreed, writing that the stabbing was a direct outgrowth of a routine customer-service interaction and therefore arose “out of and in the course of” Bryant’s employment, triggering the workers comp exclusive remedy bar.
Citing longstanding doctrine, the court said third-party assaults are compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act unless motivated by purely personal reasons. The fact that “being assaulted is not an obvious part of most jobs,” the court wrote, does not remove such incidents from the system when the causative danger flows from job performance.
The appellate panel noted that Ms. Bryant and Mr. Goolsby had no relationship outside the store. “In the absence of Bryant’s interaction with Goolsby in her capacity as a cashier,” the court wrote, “she would not have been assaulted.”
Because the assault was triggered by dissatisfaction with her job performance, Peachstate cannot be sued in tort.