JEFFERSON CITY – The Missouri Supreme Court has upheld summary judgments granted in two cases of workers attempting to sue their co-workers over allegations of breach of workplace safety.
Judge Paul C. Wilson affirmed appellant Michael Conner has no case against respondents Dale Ogletree and Scott Kidwell and also rejected appellant Russel Evans complaint against respondents Ron Wilson and Monte Barrett for allegedly failing to provide a safe work environment in a March 6 order.
With two appeals before him, Wilson was asked to further review both Conner and Evans pleas. In 2007, Intercounty Electric Cooperative Association journeyman Conner, who was under the supervision of Ogletree, was hurt after attempting to handle a live power line he believed to be de-energized after Kidwell worked on it prior to Conner, the opinion states.
In 2009 as a Wilco Contractors employee, Evans was working with Barrett, who ran over his foot with a forklift while Evans was holding a tagline connected to the machine, the opinion states.
In both cases, the trial courts awarded summary judgment in the co-employees' favors.
Beginning the analysis of both cases, Wilson cited Parr v. Breeden to detail that summary judgment is allowed when there are no disputable facts. Next, noting the significance of “nondelegable duty” under precedent case Combs. V. Rountree Const. Co., Wilson detailed that “though an employer could – and, often, had to – assign to employees the tasks required to fulfill this duty, it could not delegate responsibility for ensuring those tasks were carried out or avoid the liability for injuries to an employee due to a co-employee’s breach of this duty,” according to the opinion.
Citing several precedent cases, including Curtis v. McNair, Cain v. Humes-Deal Co. and Kelso v. W. A. Ross Construction. Co., Wilson found both cases are weak.
"The confusion inherent in Conner’s and Evans’ arguments is that they focus on whether the co-employee (as opposed to the employer) was negligent,” according to the opinion, specifically citing the significance of common law between 2005 to 2012 and the liability of co-employees based on Peters v. Wady Indus. Inc., and the transitory danger that a supervisor cannot always foresee.
"In sum, plaintiffs Conner and Evans incorrectly focus on isolated statements in Peters that an employee can sue a co-employee for negligence in 'carrying out the details' of his or her work but ignore the surrounding explanations,” according to the opinion
At the end of the ruling, Wilson separates the two cases to point out both Conner and Evans failed to allege a breach of duty “separate and distinct” from their employers performing safe work place responsibilities.
“Only actions against co-employees for injuries between 2005 and 2012 based upon such an allegation may proceed. Because Evans and Conner failed to allege such a breach of duty, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed,” Wilson concluded.