Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW
Can a Non-Subscriber Employer Blame You for Your Own Injury?
No. In Texas, an employer that dropped workers' comp cannot.
When a non-subscriber gets sued by an injured worker, Texas law strips away the defenses most negligence defendants count on.
The company cannot argue you caused your own injury, cannot say you accepted the danger, and cannot hide behind a coworker's mistake.
That is the single biggest reason a non-subscriber case is stronger than an ordinary injury claim: the blame-the-worker playbook does not work.
Call (888) 713-6653 for a free, confidential review of your Texas work injury. You Win or It's Free.
- Texas Labor Code 406.033 removes three defenses from a non-subscriber
- It cannot blame your own carelessness to reduce the award
- It cannot argue you assumed the risk by doing the job
- It cannot blame a coworker to escape liability
The Three Defenses Texas Takes From a Non-Subscriber
Texas Labor Code Section 406.033 governs a negligence suit by an employee against a non-subscribing employer.[1] It bars three specific defenses. Each one is a tool the defense normally uses to shift blame onto the injured person, and losing all three changes how these cases are fought.
Contributory Negligence: Your Own Carelessness
In a typical injury case, the defense assigns you a share of the fault to shrink the recovery. Texas calls this proportionate responsibility, and crossing 51 percent can bar an ordinary claim entirely.
Against a non-subscriber, that argument disappears. The company cannot reduce what it owes by claiming you were careless, distracted, or partly to blame. Even if you made a mistake on the floor, the law does not let the employer use it to cut your damages. The only fault that matters is the employer's.
Assumption of the Risk: You Knew the Job Was Dangerous
The second barred defense is assumption of the risk. Normally a defendant can argue that the injured person knew a hazard existed and chose to face it anyway.
A non-subscriber cannot make that argument about a job. It cannot tell a jury that you knew the warehouse was dangerous, the machine had no guard, or the floor was slick, and that you took the risk by clocking in. A worker does not surrender the right to a safe workplace by accepting the paycheck.
The Fellow-Servant Rule: Blaming a Coworker
The third barred defense is the fellow-servant rule. In its original form it let an employer escape liability by pointing to a coworker as the cause of the injury.
A non-subscriber cannot use it. If a coworker's negligence contributed to your injury, the company still answers for the harm. The employer cannot wall itself off from responsibility by naming the person who was working next to you.
What the Employer Still Tries to Argue
"Under Section 406.033, a non-subscriber cannot reduce what it owes by blaming the injured worker. The statute removes that argument before the case begins."
Losing three defenses does not make a non-subscriber give up. It shifts the fight to the arguments that remain, and knowing them is how the case is won.
- Causation. The company cannot blame you, so it attacks the link between its conduct and your injury, arguing the harm came from something else.
- Pre-existing conditions. Expect the claim that the injury existed before the incident. The medical timeline answers it.
- Course and scope. The employer may argue you were not actually working or were doing something outside your job when you were hurt.
- No negligence at all. The core defense becomes that the company did nothing wrong, which puts the focus squarely on the employer's safety record.
Each of these is met with the company's own documents: incident reports, maintenance and training records, safety-meeting minutes, and the medical record tying the injury to the event.
Why This Makes Non-Subscriber Cases Strong
Put the pieces together and the advantage is clear. You do not have to be a perfect employee. You do not have to show you never made a mistake. You only have to prove the employer was negligent and that the negligence caused your injury, and the recovery is not capped.
That is a meaningfully easier case than an ordinary negligence claim, and it is why a non-subscriber injury, handled well, often recovers far more than the same worker would have collected inside the comp system. The full framework is in our guide to Texas non-subscriber work injury claims, and the threshold question of whether you can sue your employer turns on the same coverage facts.