Can an employer’s negligent actions ever be considered intentional actions resulting in liability? The Third District Appellate Court of Illinois recently addressed the “No-Accident” exception to the Worker’s Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy rule in the case Heiden v. The Village of Westmont, et. al, 2026 IL App (3d) 250071. The Worker’s Compensation Act relies upon the theory of no-fault liability, allowing employee’s recovery for accidental injuries. In exchange, the employee is subject to the Compensation Act’s limitations on recovery. As a result of this system, the Worker’s Compensation Act generally functions as an employee’s exclusive remedy to recover against an employer for a work-related injury. This is known as the exclusive remedy rule.
The exclusive remedy rule is not absolute, and there are exceptions. “An employee can escape the exclusive remedy rule if the injury (1) was not accidental, (2) did not arise from his employment, (3) was not received during the course of employment, or (4) was not compensable under the Compensation Act.” If an injury was not accidental, Illinois Courts recognize “that an employer should not be permitted to assert that the injury was accidental and enjoy the exclusive remedy provisions of the Compensation Act when he himself committed the act causing injury.” This exception is referred to as the no-accident exception.
The Heiden case involves an employee of the water department for the Village of Westmont. The Village learned of a leaking valve in an underground water vault and sent the employee into the confined space alone and without any protective equipment. The vault flooded, the employee drowned, and the administrator of his estate filed suit seeking damages against the Village and others. The Village sought dismissal of the claims based on the exclusive remedy rule of the Compensation Act, and the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. The trial court granted the Village’s motion to dismiss, and the Estate appealed.
On review, the Appellate court noted that for the no-accident rule to be applicable, one cannot allege negligence or gross negligence. To have a valid claim under the no-accident exception, the allegations of a claim must detail an intent to cause injury. In Heiden, the Estate did exactly that. The Estate alleged that the Village intentionally violated state health and safety laws, intentionally failed to train employees, and intentionally sent the employee into the vault knowing the combination of safety violations would lead to his death. Based upon all these factors, the Appellate Court concluded that the no-accident exception was applicable in this case.
Further, the Court noted that the Tort Immunity Act provides that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment, or by failing to enforce any law. The Court found the Tort Immunity Act inapplicable in this case, as the allegations were not that the Village had failed to enforce the law, but that the Village failed to comply with the law.
The Court ultimately reversed the dismissal of the Estate’s claims and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper safety procedures and protocols, and the dire consequences that can follow if those procedures are ignored. The protections of the Worker’s Compensation Act and the Tort Immunities Act are not absolute, and intentional actions can result in liability.
The Court stated themselves that this case prompts the question, “how gross does gross negligence need to be before it becomes tantamount to intentional conduct?” While the Appellate Court did not specifically address if negligent actions can ever be negligent enough to be considered intentional actions, the Court left ample room for the answer to be yes. The Court instead stated that parties would benefit from the guidance of the Supreme Court of Illinois as to whether conduct ‘certain to cause harm is sufficient’ to trigger the no-accident exception.
The Appellate Court does make one thing clear: if a party successfully proves that their injuries were the result of intentional actions of the employer, that employer will not be shielded by the Worker’s Compensation Act or the Tort Immunities Act, and that employer will be exposed to liability. Knowing how to proceed against allegations of an employer’s intentional conduct resulting in injury is critical to limiting and mitigating exposure to these types of claims. Reach out to IFMK Law for any issues with the Workers’ Compensation Act or the Tort Immunity Act.
-- Kyle Hornik, IFMK Law Clerk