Burkhart v. Wells Electronics Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 20366,No. 2,20366,2
• Citation: 139 Ind.App. 658,215 N.E.2d 879
• Parties: Delinda BURKHART, Appellant, v. WELLS ELECTRONICS CORP., Appellee
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 879

215 N.E.2d 879

139 Ind.App. 658

Delinda BURKHART, Appellant, v. WELLS ELECTRONICS CORP., Appellee.

No. 20366.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

April 22, 1966.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1966.

[139 INDAPP 658] Richard D. Doyle, South Bend, for appellants.

[139 INDAPP 659] Roland Obenchain, Jr., Jones, Obenchain, Johnson, Ford & Pankow, South Bend, for appellee.

BIERLY, Judge.

This appeal comes to us as the result of a judgment in favor of the Appellee (Defendant below) and against Appellant (Plaintiff below) following the sustaining of the Appellee's demurrer to Appellant's amended complaint for assault and battery and Appellant's refusal to plead over.

The sole issue for determination is whether the amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, thus giving the appellant the right to maintain the action or whether appellant's remedy is exclusively within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The substance of Appellant's amended complaint is as follows: Plaintiff was an hourly rated laborer employed by the defendant The Appellee, Wells Electronics Corp., filed a demurrer to this amended complaint with memorandum attached which read:

                Wells Electronics Corp.  At the same time plaintiff was the union stewardess authorized to represent certain hourly-rated employees of the defendant, Wells Electronics Corp.  The other defendant, Eugene Edison, was a supervisory employee of the defendant, Wells Electronics Corp.  On several occasions prior to the date in question the defendant, Edison, in his supervisory capacity, had represented the interests of the defendant, Wells Electronics Corp., in controversies concerning employer-employee relationships with the plaintiff in her capacity as union stewardess.  On the date in question, the defendant, Edison, 'While acting as the servant of the defendant, Wells Electronics Corp., and in the line of his duty and within the scope of his employment as representative of defendant Wells Electronics Corp.,' and growing out of controversy between defendant Edison as representative of defendant Wells Electronics Corp., as employer, and plaintiff Burkhart as authorized representative of her fellow employees, struck plaintiff Burkhart with great force, with resulting damage; and, as a result, plaintiff Burkhart lost wages in the amount of $1,500.00 dollard, that she suffered [139 INDAPP 660] great pain and anxiety and was rendered bedfast for _   _ months; and, was deprived of privileges and enjoyment common to persons of her station to her damage in the sum of $20,000.00 dollars.  Wherefore, plaintiff demanded judgment against the defendants for $21,500.00 dollars, and punitive damages against the defendant Wells Electronics Corporation
                

DEMURRER

'The defendant, Wells Electronics Corp., demurs to plaintiffs amended complaint filed November 20, 1964, and for grounds of demurrer alleges that said amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the demurring defendant.'

MEMORANDUM

'The facts alleged in the amended complaint clearly show that the plaintiffs remedy with respect to the demurring defendant is exclusively a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Indiana, Section 40--1206 Burns' Indiana Statutes Annotated.'

Appellant assigns as error the sustaining of the demurrer of Appellee, Wells Electronics Corp., to her amended complaint.

The Statute in question reads as follows: 'Rights and Remedies of Employee Under This Act Exclusive--The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to this act (§§ 40--1201--40--1414, 40--1505--40--1704) on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, dependants or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death.' Section 40--1206, Burns' 1952 Replacement.

Appellant urges that under the fact situation as alleged in the amended complaint the above statute has no applicability because the action involves an assault and battery by an employer, through its agent upon an employee. She cites as authority[139 INDAPP 661] for this proposition 99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 226, p. 765 where it states that 'An intentional assault by an employer on an employee is not within the coverage of the compensation statute.'...