Anco Mfg. & Supply Co., Inc. v. Swank, 47059

• Decision Date: 18 June 1974
• Docket Number: No. 47059,47059
• Citation: 1974 OK 78,524 P.2d 7
• Parties: ANCO MFG. & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., and Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. A. R. SWANK, Jr., Judge of the Oklahoma State Industrial Court, Respondent.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 7

524 P.2d 7

ANCO MFG. & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., and Travelers Insurance

Company, Petitioners, v. A. R. SWANK, Jr., Judge of the Oklahoma State Industrial

Court, Respondent.

No. 47059.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 18, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a wife, as administratrix, recovers a final judgment in the district court for the death of her husband against A, and in order to support that judgment it was essential that a determination be made that the deceased husband was not acting as an employee of B at the time he sustained the accidental injuries resulting in his death, the doctrine of collateral estoppel operates to bar the wife from proceeding against B in the State Industrial Court to recover death benefits for the death of her deceased husband although B was a stranger to the district court judgment.

Petitioners, Anco Mfg. & Supply Company, Inc., and its insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance Company, petitioned this court to assume original jurisdiction and issue writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from further proceeding in State Industrial Court Case No. D--62421. Original jurisdiction assumed; and writ of prohibition granted.

Jerry H. Holland and Sanders, McElray & Carpenter, Tulsa, for petitioners.

James N. Khourie, Whitten, McDaniel & Osmond, Tulsa, for respondent.

IRWIN, Justice.

Petitioners, Anco Mfg. & Supply Company (ANCO) and its insurance carrier, seek a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the State Industrial Court from further proceeding against them in Industrial Court Case No. D--62421. In that proceeding, Neoma P. Tiner (claimant), surviving spouse of James D. Tiner, Deceased, seeks Workmen's Compensation benefits for the death of her deceased husband.

Petitioners admit that decedent was a general employee of ANCO, but challenge the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court on the theory that it had been judicially adjudicated in a previous action against a third party (which was adjudicated in favor of claimant as administratrix) that decedent was not Acting as an employee of ANCO at the time he sustained his accidental injuries resulting in his death.

Decedent sustained accidental injuries in the State of Nebraska on December 5, 1968, when a fire occurred while he was helping to repair a ruptured pipeline belonging to Mid-America Pipeline Co., (MAPCO) and died as a result thereof on December 9, 1968. As Administratrix of the Estate of her deceased husband, claimant filed an action against MAPCO in the District Court, Tulsa County, to recover damages for the death of her husband. She subsequently filed her claim (Case No. D--62421) in the State Industrial Court, and this claim was held in abeyance. The district court action resulted in a judgment in favor of claimant, as Administratrix of her husband's estate. MAPCO appealed to this Court and that appeal was dismissed on joint application of the parties 'because the judgment in the trial court has now been settled as is evidenced by the attached Release and Satisfaction of Judgment previously filed in the District Court of Tulsa County.'

Thereafter, claimant activated her Industrial Court claim. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the State Industrial Court did not have jurisdiction because in the district court case it was specifically determined by the jury and the judgment rendered thereon that decedent was not acting as an employee of ANCO at the time he sustained his accidental injuries; that claimant is estopped and precluded from further litigating this issue in the State Industrial Court; and since it has been judicially adjudicated that decedent was not acting as an employee of ANCO at the time he sustained his injuries, the State Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction and Petitioners are entitled to the Writ of Prohibition.

The State Industrial Court overruled Petitioners' motion to dismiss and Petitioners filed this original proceeding seeking a Writ of Prohibition.

We will first consider the force and effect of the dismissal by this Court of MAPCO's appeal of the district court judgment on joint application of the parties in that action. Claimant contends that the dismissal removed any live controversy between the parties to that lawsuit and rendered all issues moot. In substance, claimant argues that dismissal of that appeal rendered ineffective or moot any issues litigated or adjudicated in that case.

In Stumpff v. Harper, 90 Okl. 195, 214 P. 709, and cited with approval in Morrison v. Board of Education of Ind. School Dist. No. 6 (1967), Okl., 424 P.2d 963, we held that when an appeal is dismissed by this Court, the effect is to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The judgment in the district court action has become final and the issues therein adjudicated remain in force and effect and were not rendered moot by dismissal of the appeal by this Court. We will now consider whether Petitioners are entitled to the Writ.

A review of the district court case discloses that in the trial court's instructions to the jury it stated that 'defendant, MAPCO, affirmatively alleges that whatever the circumstances at the time of the occurrence complained of herein it was liable to plaintiff under the Workmen's Compensation Laws of the State of Nebraska, in that at the time of the occurrence James D. Tiner was an employee either of the defendant, MAPCO, or of Anco Manufacturing and Supply Company, and that since its liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Nebraska is exclusive, plaintiff is barred from proceeding against it in this case.'

In connection with the above defense asserted by MAPCO, the trial court instructed the jury that:

'You are instructed that if at the time of the fire James D. Tiner was an employee of the defendant, MAPCO, or was acting an an employee of ANCO, engaged on behalf of MAPCO in operations directed toward the repair of the rupture in, MAPCO's lines, the defendant, MAPCO's only liability to plaintiff would be under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Nebraska and plaintiff would not be entitled to any recovery at your hands in the case.

'You are further instructed, however, that the burden is upon defendant, MAPCO, to prove to you that at the time of the fire James D. Tiner was either an employee of MAPCO or ANCO as above stated, and that he did not go to the site of the leak in some other capacity.'

In answer to interrogatories submitted to the jury, the jury found that James D. Tiner, at the time the fire occurred was not an employee of MAPCO and was not an 'employee of Anco Manufacturing & Supply Company, which company had undertaken to assist in the repair of the rupture in MAPCO's lines.'

ANCO contends that by the trial court's instructions and the jury's answer to the interrogatories, that in order for claimant to prevail in that case the jury had to find that decedent at the time of his injury was not acting as an employee of either ANCO or MAPCO.

In claimant's response brief, claimant admits that in answer to the interrogatories the jury did state that decedent was not the employee of either ANCO or MAPCO. However, claimant contends that the jury could have found that decedent was an employee of ANCO, but that he was injured by MAPCO while not engaged in an integral part of ANCO's business, and that MAPCO was liable in a third party action under the common law doctrine of negligence; and that the only necessary finding to uphold the jury's verdict was that decedent was not an employee of MAPCO.

The trial court did not instruct the jury concerning whether ANCO was or was not engaged in an integral part of its business while decedent was helping to repair MAPCO's ruptured pipe line, and this issue was not submitted to the jury in the interrogatories. Considering the trial court's instructions and jury's answer to the interrogatories, in order for claimant to recover in that action, it was necessary for the jury to find that decedent, at the time he sustained his accidental injuries, was neither an employee of MAPCO nor acting as an employee of ANCO, but that he went 'to the site of the leak in some other capacity.' These findings, which concerned particular facts, were essential to support the jury's verdict and the judgment rendered thereon. These essential facts were adjudicated in favor of claimant in her district court action against MAPCO.

In order for claimant to prevail in her Industrial Court case against ANCO, it will be necessary for her to prove that decedent's injuries and resulting death arose out of and in the course of his employment with ANCO. 85 O.S.1971, § 3(7). The proof necessary to support an award in her favor as prescribed by § 3(7), supra, would be totally inconsistent with one of the essential issues adjudicated in the district court case, i.e., at the time decedent sustained his accidental injuries, he was not acting as an employee of ANCO.

Although the doctrine of preclusion against inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings, which is based upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted, either by passive consent or by affirmative action, to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise (See 59 Harvard Law Review pages 1132--1142 (1945--1946) and Vol. IX Brooklyn Law Review, pages 245--262 (1940)) might have some relevancy in the case at bar, we frame the issue to be determined thusly:

'May the adjudication in favor of claimant that her deceased husband was not acting as an employee of ANCO at the time he sustained the accidental injury resulting in his death, which was essential to support claimant's judgment as administratrix, in her district court action against MAPCO, operate as an estoppel to bar claimant's claim for death benefits against ANCO in the Industrial Court case when ANCO was neither a party nor in privity with any of the parties in the district court action?'

Claimant...