Georgia Workplace Violence: When Assault Becomes a Third-Party Claim

The identity of the assailant decides everything. Workplace assault sits at one of the most difficult intersections of Georgia workers’ comp and tort law. The exclusive remedy doctrine under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 bars tort claims against the employer for assault in scope of employment. The co-employee immunity bars tort claims against fellow workers. But assault by a non-employee third party can produce a tort claim against the perpetrator. The analysis depends on the identity of the assailant and the relationship of the assault to the work.

The standard analytical sequence #

When an assault occurs at work, the analysis proceeds through several questions:

Did the assault arise out of and in the course of employment? (Workers’ comp eligibility)
Who was the perpetrator? (Co-employee versus non-employee determines tort options)
If a co-employee, was the conduct within scope of employment? (Determines co-employee immunity)
Was the injured worker the aggressor? (May bar workers’ comp recovery)
Could the employer or premises owner be liable for inadequate security? (Premises liability theory)

Each question can produce different recovery options. The combinations matter.

Assault by a co-employee within scope of employment is generally barred from tort recovery #

When a co-worker assaults a fellow employee in scope of employment, the exclusive remedy and co-employee immunity bar tort claims against the assailant co-worker. The injured worker’s recovery is limited to workers’ comp benefits from the employer.

Georgia has no intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy. Even when the co-worker’s assault was intentional, the doctrine still applies if the conduct occurred within scope of employment. This places Georgia in a small minority of states.

Assault scenario	Workers' comp?	Tort claim available?
Co-employee assault in job-related dispute	Yes	No (co-employee immunity, no intentional tort exception)
Co-employee assault on personal dispute spilling into work	Possibly	Possibly (if outside scope of employment)
Non-employee assault during work	Yes	Yes (against the non-employee assailant)
Customer assault on employee	Yes	Yes (against the customer-assailant)
Stranger assault during work (robbery, random attack)	Yes	Yes (against the stranger)
Personal-dispute assault on employee at work	No (outside scope)	Yes (standard tort principles)

When the assault occurs at work, courts examine whether it arose from a work-related dispute or a personal dispute that happened to occur on the job. Examples of the distinction:

Argument between co-workers over work assignments that escalated to physical violence (typically within scope)
Dispute between supervisor and subordinate over work performance (typically within scope)
Long-running personal grudge between co-workers that erupted at work (potentially outside scope)
Domestic violence by a non-employee spouse arriving at the workplace (typically outside scope)
Random workplace shooting unrelated to the worker (within scope but with possible third-party claims)

The fact-specific analysis can produce close calls. The classification affects both workers’ comp eligibility and tort options.

Non-employee assault is the principal tort recovery opening #

When the assailant is not a co-employee, the exclusive remedy does not bar a tort claim against the perpetrator. Common scenarios:

Convenience store clerk assaulted during robbery
Bank teller injured during armed robbery
Healthcare worker assaulted by patient
Retail worker assaulted by customer
Security worker injured by trespasser
Hotel worker assaulted by guest
Service worker assaulted by client

The injured worker can simultaneously collect workers’ comp benefits and pursue tort recovery against the non-employee assailant. The recovery from the perpetrator is subject to the subrogation lien framework under § 34-9-11.1(b).

Recovery from individual perpetrators may be limited #

Tort claims against individual assailants face practical recovery challenges:

The assailant may have no insurance coverage
The assailant may have no assets
The assailant may be incarcerated and unable to pay judgment
Identification of the assailant may be difficult in stranger-attack cases

These practical limits drive plaintiff-side counsel to consider premises liability theories against the property owner or operator as alternative or additional recovery sources.

Premises liability for inadequate security can support a tort claim #

When the assault occurs at a third-party premises (or even on employer premises with controlling business interests), premises liability theories against the property owner for inadequate security can support tort recovery. The framework requires:

The property owner knew or should have known of the risk of criminal conduct
The property owner failed to take reasonable security measures
The failure proximately caused the injury
The plaintiff was an invitee or licensee with duty owed

Sturbridge Partners, Ltd. v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (1997), is the leading Georgia Supreme Court case on foreseeability of third-party criminal acts in premises liability. Sturbridge held that the foreseeability of a criminal attack is determined by examining prior criminal incidents at or near the premises, considering location, timing, frequency, nature, and extent, and their relationship to the crime in question. Prior crimes need not be identical to the crime in question to be relevant evidence on foreseeability.

Ga. CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, 316 Ga. 718 (2023), clarified that reasonable foreseeability is informed by a “totality of the circumstances” analysis. The decision affirmed a $45 million verdict for a CVS customer shot in an Atlanta parking lot and made summary judgment on foreseeability grounds more difficult.

Georgia premises liability cases involving inadequate security have focused on:

Apartment complexes with inadequate security in high-crime areas
Retail and commercial establishments with known criminal activity patterns
Hotels with security failures
Parking lots and garages with inadequate lighting or surveillance
ATMs and other accessible locations with foreseeable robbery risk

Foreseeability of the criminal conduct is a central element. Prior similar incidents at the property are key evidence. Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991), established that a generalized risk of crime in a high-crime area is not, on its own, sufficient to create a duty; specific evidence connecting the prior incidents to the crime in question must “attract the landlord’s attention to the dangerous condition which resulted.”

Employer premises and inadequate security #

When the assault occurs on employer premises and the worker is an employee, the exclusive remedy bars tort claims against the employer for inadequate security. Even when the employer was negligent in failing to provide adequate security, the worker is limited to workers’ comp benefits.

This creates an asymmetry. A customer assaulted on the same premises can sue the property owner for inadequate security. The employee assaulted in the same circumstances cannot. The structural difference between workers’ comp coverage and customer/invitee status produces dramatically different outcomes.

OSHA’s general duty clause and workplace violence #

OSHA’s general duty clause requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. OSHA has applied this standard to workplace violence in some contexts (notably healthcare, late-night retail, and similar high-risk industries).

OSHA enforcement does not create a private right of action in Georgia. The exclusive remedy bars tort claims against the employer regardless of OSHA violations. But OSHA standards may be admissible as evidence in third-party premises liability cases against non-employer property owners.

PTSD and psychological injury from workplace violence #

Workplace violence often produces psychological injuries in addition to physical harm. Georgia workers’ comp recognizes mental injuries arising from physical workplace injuries. Coverage for purely psychological injuries (without physical injury) is more limited.

In tort cases against perpetrators or premises owners, psychological injury claims can be pursued as part of pain and suffering and noneconomic damages. PTSD diagnoses and treatment documentation become important evidence.

Wrongful death actions in fatal workplace violence cases #

When workplace violence results in death, the wrongful death framework under O.C.G.A. § 51-4-1 applies. The exclusive remedy bars wrongful death claims against the employer. Tort claims against the perpetrator, premises owner, or other non-employer defendants may proceed. The full value of life standard under O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2 governs damages.

Building the assault case across both recovery systems #

Workplace violence cases reward careful analytical work:

Identify the perpetrator’s relationship to the employer (co-employee vs. non-employee)
Determine whether the assault occurred within scope of employment
Investigate premises liability theories against property owners for inadequate security
Document prior similar incidents at the premises (foreseeability evidence)
Coordinate workers’ comp claim with tort litigation
Consider OSHA violations as evidence in third-party claims
Structure settlement allocation to manage subrogation lien exposure
Address PTSD and psychological injury documentation

The framework permits meaningful recovery in workplace violence cases despite the structural limits imposed by the exclusive remedy doctrine.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Georgia workers’ compensation and personal injury law involves fact-specific analysis. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.