Skip to main content

SCHAFFHOUSER v. TRANSEDGE TRUCK CENTERS

E.D. Pa.June 2, 2020No. 5:19-cv-05811
Plaintiff WinCeasco, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision and remanded the case, holding that the employee's lightning strike injury arose out of his employment and was compensable under workers' compensation law despite not presenting increased risk evidence.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Wins Lightning Strike Injury Case** This case involved a truck driver named Schaffhouser who was injured by lightning while working for Transedge Truck Centers (owned by Ceasco, Inc.). When he filed for workers' compensation benefits, the company and its insurance carrier denied his claim, arguing that the lightning strike wasn't related to his job duties. The case went through multiple court levels. Initially, lower courts ruled against Schaffhouser, but he appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. The state's highest court reversed the earlier decisions and ruled in the worker's favor. The court determined that Schaffhouser's lightning strike injury "arose out of his employment" and should be covered under workers' compensation law. Importantly, the court said he didn't need to prove that his job created an increased risk of being struck by lightning. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling strengthens workers' compensation protections by establishing that injuries don't always have to involve job-specific risks to be covered. If you're hurt while performing work duties—even by natural events like lightning—you may still be entitled to workers' compensation benefits. This decision makes it easier for workers to prove their injuries are work-related.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.