Deskins v. S.W. Jack Drilling Co
In Deskins v. S.W. Jack Drilling Co., 215 W.Va. 525, 600 S.E.2d 237 (2004), the Court evaluated the evidence presented by the appellant in an attempt to establish the existence of a specific unsafe working condition and reasoned as follows:
" the appellant has not presented any evidence to show that the appellees possessed actual knowledge that their employees were improperly supervised and that there was a high degree of risk and a strong probability of serious injury. To be specific, the appellant has produced no evidence of prior injuries, employee complaints, or citations from any regulatory or governmental agency arising from the use of a dozer to set up the pipe rack and pipe tub or the lack of supervision during that operation. The appellant simply has not offered any evidence remotely suggesting that the appellees knew that their supervision of the appellant or any of their employees was inadequate. At best, the appellant might be able to prove ordinary negligence on the part of the appellees. However, "the 'deliberate intention' exception to the Workers' Compensation system is meant to deter the malicious employer, not to punish the stupid one." Helmick v. Potomac Edison Co., 185 W.Va. 269, 274, 406 S.E.2d 700, 705 (1991)."
(215 W.Va. at 531, 600 S.E.2d at 243.)