Alabama Supreme Court Bars Walmart Worker From Suing After Parking Lot Injury

On October 2, 2024, at around 9:46 p.m., Phillip Duke was jogging in the parking lot of a Walmart distribution center when he was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by a fellow Walmart employee, Qeon Gray. At the time of the accident, both Duke and Gray were employed by Walmart, and Gray was performing a job-related duty.

Duke filed suit in December 2024, seeking damages for his injuries. The Alabama Supreme Court, ruling on March 20, 2026, shut that door permanently.

The Pike Circuit Court, in granting summary judgment for Walmart and Gray, noted that it was undisputed that Duke had accepted workers' compensation and medical benefits from Walmart, that he had accepted those benefits while represented by counsel, and that he had taken no action to reserve any right to pursue any other remedy before accepting those benefits. The trial court held that Duke's acceptance of workers' compensation benefits while represented by counsel estopped him from pursuing other remedies against Walmart.

Walmart's defense rested on two provisions of Alabama's workers' compensation framework. Walmart claimed that, under the exclusive-remedy provisions, it was entitled to immunity on Duke's tort claims because Duke had accepted workers' compensation benefits. Those provisions, Alabama Code Sections 25-5-52 and 25-5-53, generally preclude employees from pursuing tort remedies against their employers and co-workers for workplace injuries, limiting recovery to workers' compensation benefits instead.

Duke pushed back, arguing his off-duty status should take him outside the Act's reach. In his response to Walmart's summary judgment motion, Duke asserted that the Act did not apply because he was off duty and not performing any job duties at the time of the accident, pointing to Walmart's own documents indicating he was not "doing normal activities," was "walking/running in yard," and was not "logged into" his tablet.

The Alabama Supreme Court was not persuaded. The court found that Duke failed to meet his burden of demonstrating by substantial evidence that his tort claims were not barred by the exclusive-remedy provisions. The critical factor was not whether Duke was technically off the clock, but that he had already accepted workers' compensation benefits, making any simultaneous tort claim legally inconsistent. Alabama courts have long held that "when a party, with knowledge of facts, makes an election between two inconsistent theories of recovery, the election is binding upon him," meaning a worker cannot accept workers' compensation benefits as an employee and at the same time pursue negligence claims against the employer.

The practical stakes for distribution center workers are direct: if you are injured on company property, accepting workers' compensation benefits, even while lawyered up, can permanently foreclose any separate lawsuit against Walmart or a coworker. The decision does not require a worker to be on the clock or actively performing duties at the moment of injury. Duke's case illustrates that the act of taking comp benefits, without explicitly reserving the right to pursue other remedies, is itself a binding legal choice.

The Alabama Supreme Court's March 20 ruling affirmed the Pike Circuit Court's judgment in full, leaving Duke with whatever compensation he received through the workers' comp system and no path to a jury trial on his tort claims.