Alabama Injury Law Blog
by Hollis Wright Managing Partner Josh Wright
The 2025 update to Alabama Pattern Jury Instruction APJI 22.03 may seem like a small wording change, but it could matter a great deal in co-employee cases involving removed, bypassed, disabled, uninstalled, or poorly maintained safety guards. APJI 22.03 applies to claims under Ala. Code §25-5-11(c)(2), which allows an injured worker to sue a co-employee for certain willful conduct involving safety devices. Because workers’ compensation usually limits an injured employee to statutory benefits, this exception can be critical.
I was involved in drafting the changes to APJI 22.03, and they are highlighted here in yellow. The key change appears in element No. 4. The old instruction required proof that “the defendant knew” the removal or alteration would probably or likely cause injury or death. The revised instruction now says the defendant acted “with knowledge” that the removal, failure to install, failure to maintain or repair, bypassing, or disabling of the safety guard would probably or likely cause physical injury or death.
The difference matters. “The defendant knew” sounds like a strict actual-knowledge requirement. A defendant can use that language to argue the plaintiff must prove to co-employee personally knew the guard was missing or compromised and personally understood that serious injury was likely. In real plant-injury cases, that kind of direct proof is often hard to get.
The new wording is broader. It fits the way knowledge is usually proven in civil cases—through the surrounding facts. A jury may look at the co-employee’s job duties, supervisory role, maintenance work, safety responsibilities, training, prior complaints, inspection records, and how obvious the missing or disabled guard was.
This is where constructive knowledge becomes important. A supervisor who assigns workers to use a machine every day may have a hard time claiming ignorance if the guard was plainly missing. The same may be true for a maintenance worker who regularly services the equipment, or for a safety employee, lead operator, or manager whose duties placed them in a position to know about the danger of a defective or missing guard. The ability to prove just “constructive knowledge” changes the game for injured workers that are injured using equipment.
The new Notes on Use reinforce that point too. They state that co-employees who “would have known” or “should have known” that a safety device had been removed or modified, and that the condition would likely or probably cause injury or death, may be liable under §25-5-11(c)(2). That language matters because it does not limit liability to the person who physically removed the guard or to someone who admits actual knowledge of the removal.
The new Notes on Use cite cases, including Ex parte Canada and Smith v. Wallace. Practically, that gives injured workers stronger support for arguing that knowledge can be inferred from a defendant’s role and responsibilities. In a plant, knowledge often follows function: the person who maintains the machine, supervises its use, inspects the area, or manages production may all be examined differently, depending on what their jobs required them to see and do.
The second new Notes on Use section is also worth attention. It points out that Alabama case law uses language that differs in some respects from the pattern instruction. That is a useful reminder that the APJI is not the law itself. The statute and appellate decisions control, and the instruction manual must be read in light of both.
For injured workers, the revision may make these claims easier to prove. Defendants have often argued that a claim fails unless the plaintiff can show the specific co-employee actually knew the guard was removed and actually understood the likely risk. The revised APJI gives plaintiffs a clearer response:
the issue may include what the co-employee would have known or should have known based on the person’s role at the plant.
For defendants, the change raises the stakes in discovery and trial preparation. Plaintiffs will likely focus on job descriptions, maintenance logs, inspection duties, safety policies, training records, prior incidents, photographs, and witness testimony. A defendant’s title, duties, and day-to-day involvement with the machine may matter as much as any denial of knowledge.
The practical result is that more co-employees may face civil claims when the evidence shows they were in a position to know that a guard was removed, bypassed, disabled, not installed, or not maintained. Supervisors, maintenance workers, lead operators, safety personnel, and managers may all face closer scrutiny depending on the facts.
Bottom line: the 2025 APJI 22.03 revisions is more than a wording tweak. It shifts attention from direct actual knowledge alone to what the evidence may show about the defendant’s knowledge, including constructive knowledge. For lawyers handling Alabama workplace injury cases, that change should affect pleading, discovery, summary-judgment briefing, trial strategy, and jury-charge conferences.