Blade v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 August 1983
• Docket Number: No. 1-183A7,1-183A7
• Citation: 452 N.E.2d 1036
• Parties: Elaine M. BLADE, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Joseph Blade, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANACONDA ALUMINUM COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1036

452 N.E.2d 1036

Elaine M. BLADE, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Joseph Blade, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANACONDA ALUMINUM COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-183A7.

Court of Appeals of Indiana First District.

Aug. 24, 1983.

Stephen L. Trueblood, Bolin, Trueblood & Rennolet, Terre Haute, for plaintiff-appellant.

David W. Sullivan, Cox, Zwerner, Gambill & Sullivan, Terre Haute, Charles F. Hosmer, ARCO Metals Co., Rolling Meadows, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant, Elaine M. Blade, as administratrix of her husband's estate, brought a wrongful death action against Anaconda Aluminum Company, Inc. (Anaconda) to recover damages which resulted from her husband's death in a furnace explosion at Anaconda's plant where he was employed. Blade's complaint alleged that Anaconda had intentionally and with reckless disregard for the safety of its employees:

a. Disconnected the oxygen analyzer alarm bell on the furnace two months before the explosion, but reconnected the same June 11, 1981; [two days after the explosion].

b. Disconnected the safety cooling water to the furnace door and mantels;

c. Failed and refused to shut down the No. 10 furnace which the Defendant knew had been detonating for two months prior to June 9, 1981;

d. Failed and refused to replace the cracked furnace radiant tubes and relied on welding instead of replacement;

e. Failed and refused to operate the furnace with the exhaust fan running;

f. Ordered the exhaust side of the burner box plugged off on the No. 10 furnace and failed to plug the intake side;

g. Failed to take any steps to prevent raw gas from being dumped into the furnace;

that prior to and on June 9, 1981, Anaconda knew or should have known that injury or death to an employee working at the site of the No. 10 Anneal furnace was substantially certain to follow from the conduct of Anaconda described in items a through g mentioned directly above and the decedent's death was thus the direct and proximate result of the intentional conduct of Anaconda; and that Anaconda's acts were malicious, oppressive and reprehensible.

Appellant's Brief p. 4-5.

The complaint sought both actual and punitive damages.

Anaconda filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 12(B)(6). The trial court granted the motion stating:

In determining the merits of Anaconda's Motion, the Court is required to accept as true all facts alleged in Blade's Complaint and draw every reasonable inference therefrom in Blade's favor. Morris v. City of Kokomo, (1978) 381 N.E.2d 510. The Court also notes the appeal of Blade's attorneys' passionate arguments concerning the unfairness of Anaconda's protection from port [sic] liability by virtue of the "exclusive remedies" provisions of I.C. 22-3-6-2 [sic, I.C. 22-3-2-6] particularly in light of the allegations of the Complaint which we have heretofore said must assume to be true. However, the facts and issues of this case are markedly similar to those set out in Cunningham v. Aluminum Company of America, Inc., (1981) 417 N.E.2d 1186 and therefore must be controlled by the holding of Cunningham, Id.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Anaconda's Motion to Dismiss Blade's Complaint is GRANTED and Blade's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED, this 20th day of October, 1982.

Ind.Code 22-3-2-6 is part of Indiana's Workmen's Compensation Act, Ind.Code 22-3-2-1 et seq., and reads:

22-3-2-6 Rights and remedies of employee exclusive.--

The rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 [22-3-2-1--22-3-6-3] on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death, except for remedies available under IC 16-7-3.6 [16-7-3.6-1--16-7-3.6-20]. [Acts 1929, ch. 172, Sec. 6, p. 536; 1982, P.L. 21, Sec. 50.] ¹

The focal point of Blade's argument is an attempt to distinguish her claim from Cunningham by drawing the inference that Anaconda intentionally injured Mr. Blade. She then concludes Cunningham stands for the proposition that intentional torts are not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy section.

We did not address the issue of whether intentional injuries were covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act in Cunningham. The issue in Cunningham was whether an employee could bring a direct action against his employer for injuries sustained in the course of his employment when the employer had intentionally violated safety statutes. There the plaintiff was injured when he fell into a vat of molten aluminum at his employer's aluminum reclamation plant. Like the case at bar, Cunningham was...