| |
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
In Logan v Sho-Me Power Elec. Co-op, 122 S.W.3d 670 (Mo.App.S.D. 2003), parents of deceased employee who was electrocuted while working for an independent contractor brought a wrongful death suit against independent contractor, superintendent for independent contractor, the landowner, and an engineer on the project. The Circuit Court dismissed independent contractor and superintendent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also granted summary judgment for the landowner and engineer. The Court of Appeals affirmed stating that the landowner did not retain substantial control over construction site so neither landowner nor engineer can be held liable. Further, parents failed to show something extra beyond supervisor?s alleged breach of duty to provide a reasonably safe work environment therefore, the Plaintiff?s exclusive remedy lies pursuant to the Workers? Compensation Act.
In Brown v Robertson, 111 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003), injured employee brought action against coworker for injuries sustained in work-related accident where coworker operated truck in a careless manner. The Circuit Court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed stating that the injury did not fall outside the scope of the Worker?s Compensation Act and that plaintiff must prove defendant took an affirmative action beyond failing to safely drive to not fall under the workers? compensation laws.
In Quinn v Clayton Construction, 111 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003), employee and his wife brought negligence action against employee?s co-employees for injuries employee received at work. Employee was hit by an iron negligently thrown down from a roof by co-workers. Court of Appeals stated action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers? Compensation Act since the Appellants failed to allege that defendants did "something more" and engaged in an affirmative act directed at plaintiff personally that increased his chance of injury. Affirmed.
In Mouser et al. v Caterpillar, Inc., 336 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. Ct of App. 2003), employee of independent contractor who had workers? compensation coverage had brought premises liability claim in state court against owner of rubber manufacturing plant for personal injuries sustained during repair of a rubber mixer. The Court ruled that to make the landowner liable, they would be forcing the landowner to pay twice since the cost of workers? compensation insurance was included in the charge by the independent contractor and therefore are precluded from bringing the premises liability claim. Affirmed.
In Butts v Express Personnel Services, 73 S.W.3d 825 (Mo.App. S.D.) 2002, the first temporary service firm which employed a worker was not immune from tort liability from a claim for injury of a second temporary worker alleging negligence of the first temporary worker. "Something more" in burden of proof not required.
In Gunnett v Garardier Building and Realty Co., 70 S.W.3d 633 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002), claimant?s supervisor covered a hole in a roof with plywood where a skylight was to be installed. Again there was no pleading of an "affirmative act" by the employer. Taylor v Wallace 73 S.W.3d, 620 (Sup. banc 2002), was cited and affirmed.
In Logsdon v Charles Killinger, 69 S.W.3d 529 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002), a third-party suit was allowed when employee had been left in unguarded platform raised 20 feet in the air by a fork lift, which tipped over, killed the decedent. Exclusive remedy not applicable, because of "affirmative negligence" by employer and it?s supervisor in allowing this "ultra hazardous condition" to exist.
In Taylor v Wallace, 73 S.W.3d 633 (Sup. banc 2002), exclusive r
|
|
 |
