Connection lost
Server error
Parret v. UNICCO Service Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted the “substantial certainty” test for the intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity. An employee can now sue an employer in tort if the employer knew with substantial certainty that its conduct would cause injury, even without a specific desire to harm.
Legal Significance: This case formally adopts the Restatement’s definition of intent for the intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation, replacing the stricter “true intentional tort” standard and expanding the potential for employer liability for egregious conduct that is nearly certain to cause harm.
Parret v. UNICCO Service Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Glenn Parret, an employee of an independent contractor (UNICCO), was electrocuted and killed while replacing emergency lights at a Bridgestone/Firestone tire plant. Parret was working on a 227-volt electrical system that was still energized, or “hot.” Evidence suggested that another employee had warned Parret the work was unsafe and that other employees had refused to perform it. A factual dispute existed as to whether UNICCO and Bridgestone required employees to work on the energized system, knowing that employees could not de-energize it and that death or serious injury was substantially certain to occur. Both companies had written policies prohibiting work on energized equipment. Parret’s widow received workers’ compensation death benefits but also filed a tort action against UNICCO and Bridgestone. The federal district court certified two questions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the first of which concerned the standard of intent required to overcome the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the intentional tort exception to the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision require a specific intent to injure, or is it satisfied when an employer acts with knowledge that injury is substantially certain to result?
The court adopted the “substantial certainty” standard. An employer’s conduct is intentional Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the intentional tort exception to the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision require a specific intent to injure, or is it satisfied when an employer acts with knowledge that injury is substantially certain to result?
Conclusion
By adopting the substantial certainty standard, this decision significantly clarified and expanded Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ex
Legal Rule
An employer's conduct constitutes an intentional tort, falling outside the exclusive remedy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Analysis
The Oklahoma Supreme Court's analysis centered on integrating the intentional tort exception Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, s
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Oklahoma adopts the “substantial certainty” standard for the intentional tort exception