In Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, the Supreme Court agreed that "as a general rule" the section 3601(a)(1) exception "includes an intent to injure requirement," but suggested in a footnote that unusual circumstances could arise in the workplace where "an intent to threaten to inflict physical injury would be sufficient to bring a coemployee's conduct within the reach of the statute" ( Torres, supra, at p. 1006, fn. 6 citing a situation where an employee pointed a gun in a threatening manner). The Court will assume for purposes of this opinion that the Parkhouse "intent to threaten to inflict physical injury" test applies. The Parkhouse footnote reads in full as follows: "Because the issue is not presented by the facts of this case, we need not decide whether there may be some circumstances in which an intent to threaten to inflict physical injury would be sufficient to bring a coemployee's conduct within the reach of the statute. For example, suppose a coemployee, angered over a work-related incident and acting within the scope of employment, pointed a gun in a threatening manner at another employee in the workplace. If that employee, reasonably fearing being shot, dove for cover and thereby sustained injury, a trier of fact might reasonably find that the resulting injury was proximately caused by the coemployee's 'willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression' under section 3601, subdivision (a)(1), even if the coemployee's subjective intent was only to threaten physical injury rather than inflict it." (Ibid.)