Blog / Legal Options

West Virginia Supreme Court Derails Employer's Attempts at Sergeant Shultz-type Defense in Deliberate Intent Cases

law
We've probably all heard Sergeant Shultz from Hogan's Heroes bellow out emphatically: "I see nothing!" In McComas vs. AFC Industries, LLC, No. 12-0548 (W.Va. October 17, 2013), the employer attempted to invent a Sergeant Shultz-type defense in deliberate intent cases. Thankfully, the West Virginia Supreme Court rejected this attempt to avoid an employer's duty to conduct mandatory safety inspections. The plaintiff, David McComas, was a welder by trade. His employer, AFC Industries, was a company that built railroad cars. McComas, joined by two other welders, were assigned to a part of AFC's plant that had been out of operation and all electrical power had been shut off. When McComas attempted to restart the power at an electrical box, an arc blast occurred. McComas was thrown to the floor, and despite wearing all of the required safety equipment including hat, goggles and gloves, he suffered severe burns to 25% of his body. It turns out that the electrical box had been installed over 50 years before this tragic incident and, incredibly, that AFC had never inspected it. McComas sued AFC for deliberate intent. Ordinarily, employers can't sue for workplace injuries but, instead, can only recover workers compensation benefits. Where, however, the employer acts with deliberate intent, the employee can sue and recover all of the damages he sustained. To recover for deliberate intent, an employee must prove, among other things, that the employer had actual knowledge of an unsafe working condition. AFC claimed that because it had never inspected the electrical box, it was like Sergeant Shultz: it knew nothing. Therefore, it couldn't be liable for deliberate intent. Not surprisingly, the West Virginia Supreme Court rejected this argument out of hand. In fact, the Court pointed out that there was a specific safety standard requiring electrical boxes to be inspected every three to six months, if energized, and every three to six years, if deenergized. Ironically, AFC's own expert conceded this safety standard applied to the electrical box in question. But AFC stubbornly insisted that it had never looked inside the box and, therefore, couldn't possibly have had knowledge of any defects. The Court's response couldn't have been stated in stronger terms. "he Legislature did not intend to allow employers to shirk responsibilities imposed by specific statutes, rules, regulations or standards by turning a blind eye to work place hazards. Willful ignorance...is no defense..." The Court then summarized this principle in a new syllabus point: "When a safety statute, rule or regulation, or a commonly accepted and well-known safety standard within the industry or business, imposes a specifically identifiable duty to inspect upon the employer, and the inspection would have revealed the specific unsafe working condition, the employer may be found to have had actual knowledge of the specific unsafe working condition within the meaning of this State's deliberate intent statute, W.Va. Code, 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii)(B) ." This is an important win for workplace safety. Employers do not get a free pass because they deliberately ignore mandatory safety inspections. To hold otherwise would render these inspections pointless and, even worse, place the lives of thousands of working West Virginians in jeopardy. Sergeant Shultz was never meant to be taken seriously. Neither was AFC's argument that it could avoid its safety responsibilities without any legal consequences. The Court got it right--and it should continue to zealously protect the rights and safety of our workers.
Posted in:

Related Posts

Person in a business suit resting folded arms on a table beside a tipped glass bottle with colorful capsules and pills scattered around.

What to Look for in a Dangerous Drug Lawyer

What to Look for in a Dangerous Drug Lawyer If you or a loved one suffered injuries, illnesses, or death caused by defective medications, you need the help of a Bordas & Bordas dangerous drug lawyer. We could hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and help victims like you secure compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Navigating complex liability issues between manufacturers and doctors is not an easy task. Only a few dangerous drug lawyers have the skills and experience to maximize your settlement. Read on to learn what to look for in a dangerous drug lawyer and contact our team for help protecting your rights. What Makes a Drug Dangerous? Even big pharma makes mistakes, and while medications are designed to help, dangerous outcomes like severe side effects, drug-drug interactions, and overdoses are a significant public health issue. Pharmaceuticals may cause harm even when you use them as intended. This can happen due to improper FDA approval, a manufacturing defect, contamination, dangerous interactions with other drugs, undisclosed side effects, improper labeling, or inadequate warnings. Taking these dangerous drugs comes with risks that far outweigh their prescribed benefits and could lead to very serious side effects. From severe allergic reactions and organ failure to neurological damage and birth defects, taking these medications could be life-threatening. What Should You Look for in a Dangerous Drug Lawyer? When you look for a dangerous drug lawyer, prioritize attorneys with specific, proven experience in product liability. It is essential to ensure they have handled cases involving the exact or similar medications and understand the complex scientific and medical data involved. This professional legal advocate should have a strong track record of settlements against Big Pharma, as well as ample resources for complex investigations. Dangerous drug cases are long and costly, and a reputable firm should have the financial stability to handle extensive litigation, hire expert witnesses, and manage massive documentation. Does the Dangerous Drug Lawyer You Hire Really Matter? Yes. The lawyer you hire makes all the difference in achieving the very best outcome in your dangerous drug claim. They should keep you informed and make you feel supported, and not like just another case file number. Poor communication or difficulty reaching the attorney is a red flag that could delay your case or even risk your compensation altogether. If a fair settlement cannot be reached, you need an attorney who is not afraid to go to court and litigate on your behalf. Warning signs may not be easy to spot at first. So, be wary of a dangerous drug lawyer who makes vague promises about the outcome of your case or one who lacks the specialized experience that is essential in these types of matters. Learn What Our Dangerous Drug Lawyers Deliver and Reach Out The dangerous drug lawyers at Bordas & Bordas have won many multimillion-dollar settlements for our clients, and we stand ready to offer you the same quality legal services. With our contingency payment structure, let us take on your claim’s risk while you recover. Schedule an appointment for your free consultation to learn more about what to look for in a dangerous drug lawyer.

Costs of Litigation- What Is a Legitimate Cost?

According to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7430(c)(1) and I.R.C. § 7430(c)(1), the term “reasonable litigation costs” are defined as follows: (A) reasonable court costs, and (B) based upon prevailing market rates for the kind or quality of services furnished— (i) the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses in connection with a court proceeding, except that no expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the United States, (ii) the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found by the court to be necessary for the preparation of the party's case, and (iii) reasonable fees paid or incurred for the services of attorneys in connection with the court proceeding, except that such fees shall not be in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for such proceeding, the difficulty of the issues presented in the case, or the local availability of tax expertise, justifies a higher rate. In the case of any calendar year beginning after 1996, the dollar amount referred to in clause (iii) shall be increased by an amount equal to such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year, by substituting “calendar year 1995” for “calendar year 2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. If any dollar amount after being increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $10, such dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Corson v. C.I.R., 123 T.C. 202 (2004) addressed what is a reasonable litigation cost and specifically discusses section 7430. The opinion states that section 7430 defines reasonable litigation costs as reasonable court costs and reasonable fees paid or incurred for the services of attorneys in connection with the proceeding. Corson, 123 T.C. at *212 (citing Sec. 7430(c)(1)). Corson involved the review of determining what the fair litigation costs of the prevailing party are in a tax claim. Furthermore, attorney’s fees, which may be considered litigation costs in a claim, are limited by statute and are adjusted for living costs. Id. (citing Sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii)). According to the National Center for State Courts’ Civil Litigation Cost Model, the median costs of litigation broken down by case type are as follows: Automobile $43k, Premises Liability $54k, Real Property $66k, Employment $88k, Contract $91k, and Malpractice $122k. More on this can be found here. As you can see, the cost of litigating a legal claim can be very expensive. A contingency lawyer will generally agree to forgo all attorney fees and litigation costs if there is no verdict or settlement in the client’s favor. It is this factor that will likely benefit a client in various ways. Examples of the same are that the attorney bears all the economic risks associated with the litigation, and the contingency fee substantially ensures the attorney will be diligent and assertive in the handling of the claim, because the attorney will not get paid, if at all, until a successful resolution of the case. A person may want to keep all of this in mind when assessing the legitimacy of the lawyer’s share of the recovery in a successful claim.

BB_BeyondTheShild_Header.

Behind the Shield Newsletter – March 2025

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! May your day be filled with good fortune, laughter, and maybe even a little bit of that Irish luck! We recently had a leprechaun, who was convinced his pot of gold was under threat, visit Bordas & Bordas for some legal advice on the best way to protect his pot of gold. Want to see how our attorneys handled this tricky situation? Click here to watch the video. Have a lucky day! Fighting for Justice for 40 Years In 2025, Bordas & Bordas is proudly celebrating 40 years, a testament to our unwavering commitment to serving our community and fighting for justice. Since our founding in 1985 by Jim and Linda Bordas, we’ve grown from a small practice into one of the region’s premier personal injury law firms with offices in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Wheeling and Moundsville, West Virginia, and St. Clairsville, Ohio. The story of Bordas & Bordas Attorneys PLLC began with a unique partnership. Linda, a former hospital pharmacist turned lawyer, and Jim, who has been described by many as a giant in the legal profession, combined their expertise and passion for justice to open the doors of Bordas & Bordas upon Linda’s graduation from law school in 1985. Their remarkable record, including never losing a trial together, fueled the firm’s early success. Linda’s medical background proved invaluable, particularly in medical malpractice cases, where she became a leading force, securing landmark verdicts and expanding patient rights. Jim spent his career fighting battles for his clients that others couldn’t or wouldn’t fight. For over four decades, he built a reputation of success through landmark jury verdicts and settlements. In 2000, the Bordas legacy continued with the addition of Jim and Linda’s oldest son, Jamie, who became the firm’s managing partner in 2005. Jim cherished working alongside Jamie, creating a strong bond, and ensuring the firm’s values would endure. Linda remains a partner at Bordas & Bordas and continues to provide guidance and advice as we continue to fight for justice. Our C ore Values: The Shield of Bordas & Bordas Our logo, a shield with four quadrants and a central cross, symbolizes what we hold dear: Experience: Four decades of dedicated legal service. Family: A firm built on strong family values and lasting relationships. Community: A commitment to serving and giving back to our community. Results: A proven track record of securing substantial recoveries for our clients. Christian Values: The Cross in the center represents the moral compass that guides our work. Our Commitment to You A lot has changed in 40 years, but one thing remains the same: Our reputation for taking on any opponent in the courtroom. This is backed by years of success and record-breaking results, including numerous multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements across a wide range of personal injury practice areas. We understand the challenges clients face, which is why our cases are handled on a contingency fee basis. This means clients pay no fee unless we secure a recovery for them. We offer: Free initial consultations. No retainer required. We advance all case expenses. Our work has garnered national attention, with features on programs like 60 Minutes, Inside Edition, and CNN, showcasing our dedication to seeking justice for our clients. Learn more about our results by clicking here. As we celebrate 40 years, we reaffirm our commitment to providing exceptional legal representation and upholding the values that have guided us since 1985. We are grateful for the trust our clients have placed in us and look forward to serving our community for many years to come. Building Strong Co-Counsel Partnerships at Bordas & Bordas At Bordas & Bordas, we deeply value collaborative relationships with fellow members of the trial bar. Our firm’s history is marked by significant successes achieved through strategic co-counsel partnerships. We recognize the strength that comes from combining our resources and expertise with that of other firms. Our firm’s size and diverse team of attorneys, specializing in various practice areas, enable us to effectively handle complex cases. We are particularly well-equipped to collaborate on matters involving: Personal Injury Wrongful Death Insurance Bad Faith Trucking and Auto Accidents Product Liability Medical Malpractice / Nursing Home Injuries Premises Liability We understand the importance of a strong co-counsel relationship and are committed to open communication, shared strategy, and a unified approach to achieving the best possible outcome for our clients. Our law firm’s proven track record against major corporations, including Walmart, Quicken Loans, AEP, American Home Patient/Lincare, and ManorCare, demonstrates our ability to handle high-stakes litigation. We believe that a collaborative approach allows us to maximize recoveries and provide exceptional legal representation. You can learn more about our firm’s capabilities and results at bordaslaw.com. Whether we’ve partnered in the past or are exploring a new co-counsel opportunity, we are eager to discuss how we can work together. Please feel free to reach out to managing partner Jamie Bordas directly at 304-242-8410. We consider it a privilege to collaborate with fellow trial lawyers. What Our Clients Say About Us Hear directly from Tom and Michele McFadden about their experience working with Bordas & Bordas and how we helped them achieve a successful outcome. Click To Watch Video It’s common for people to be shaken up after a car accident, and that can lead to mistakes. Learn the Dos and Don’ts after a car accident: Colin, a West Virginia University College of Law graduate, focuses his practice on personal injury litigation and works out of the firm’s Pittsburgh office. During his time at WVU College of Law, he served as an environmental law research assistant, where he helped draft and edit two published law review articles on coal mining and the opioid epidemic.  As a clinical student at the United States Supreme Court Clinic, his clinic successfully appealed two cases in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to joining the firm, Colin gained valuable experience through internships at World Green Growth Organization, The Mills McDermott Criminal Law Center, and Bordas & Bordas itself. With a strong foundation in law and a passion for justice, he is committed to advocating for the rights of injured individuals. A Pittsburgh native, Colin is passionate about environmental conservation and environmental law. Outside of the office he enjoys skiing, hiking and camping. Quotes to Live By: