Clements v. Webster
Citation | 425 So.2d 1058 |
Parties | Earl W. CLEMENTS, et al. v. Robert WEBSTER, et al. 81-206. |
Decision Date | 19 November 1982 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
John T. Roach, Jr., Birmingham, for appellants.
James L. Martin of Houston & Martin, Eufaula, for appellees.
This appeal is from a judgment entered in a case brought under the third party provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act (§ 25-5-11, Code 1975) against four co-employees. We affirm.
Plaintiff Earl Clements was employed by Louisiana Pacific Corporation in Barbour County as a press board operator. In 1979, Louisiana Pacific was in the process of converting the facility where Clements was employed from a particle board plant to a medium density fiberboard plant. This required the dismantling of all the old equipment and installing new equipment, thus forcing the facility to shut down. Louisiana Pacific used their own employees to aid in dismantling the old and installing the new equipment.
On 3 May 1979, Clements, along with three other employees, was assigned to dismantle what is called the surge bin at the plant. Clements was injured when a plywood board that he was walking on gave way under him, causing Clements to fall approximately twenty-one feet onto a concrete slab. As a result, Clements suffered multiple fractures and internal injuries.
Clements filed this action against the following: Robert Webster, the process consultant for the plant conversion; C.B. Wesson, the plant manager; and Rodney Bowersox, the plant superintendent. The complaint alleged negligent and/or wanton conduct by the defendants in the following areas: supervising of work performed by Clements; failure to provide proper equipment or safety apparatus; plant inspection; failure to warn of known dangers; failure to provide proper safeguards, machinery or procedures; allowing work to progress in a dangerous or hazardous manner; failure to provide equipment and a safe place to work; and providing faulty or defective plans for the work to be performed. Clements claimed damages of $750,000. The complaint was later amended to add as a defendant, Dennis Green, the maintenance superintendent.
We note that Clements's wife Ann is also a plaintiff, claiming damages for loss of consortium.
The case was tried before a jury, and after all parties had rested, the trial judge granted a motion for a directed verdict in behalf of the defendant Webster. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the three remaining defendants; judgment was entered accordingly. Clements's motion for a new trial was denied.
Clements contends that the trial court committed error directing a verdict in favor of Webster when there was sufficient evidence to submit the case against him to the jury. Webster's job as process consultant required him to lay out equipment flow, purchase equipment, prepare drawings, and work out a time schedule for dismantling the old and installing the new equipment. Webster gave no personal instructions to anyone, including Clements, about dismantling the surge bin. Jack Sanders was directly in charge of the work crew who dismantled the surge bin and he received his instructions from R.B. Jones who worked directly under Green, the maintenance superintendent.
The test to determine if Webster is liable to Clements is whether or not Louisiana Pacific had delegated to Webster, as a part of his duties of employment, the duty to assure Clements a reasonably safe workplace. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Co. v. Coleman, 394 So.2d 334 (Ala.1980). There is no evidence to establish a personal duty owed by Webster to Clements, nor was any evidence presented showing Webster owing Clements a duty to provide him with a reasonably safe workplace. A co-employee cannot be held liable merely because he has a general administrative responsibility; the fact that a person is in an administrative or supervisory position alone does not make that person liable. It is the burden of the injured party to prove, with specificity, the co-employee's delegated or assumed duty, and the breach thereof, out of which the claim for recovery arises. This court addressed this issue in Carter v. Franklin, 234 Ala. 116, 173 So. 861 (1937):
In light of the evidence showing that Webster owed no duty to Clements to provide the latter with a reasonably safe workplace, we agree with the trial court that Webster was entitled to a directed verdict. Whether tested by the substantial evidence rule or the so-called scintilla rule, the record shows no evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Clements's injuries were proximately caused by the negligence or wantonness of Webster. The law in this regard is aptly summarized in Coburn v. American Liberty Insurance Co., 341 So.2d 717 (Ala.1977):
Clements also asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to admit portions of Webster's deposition concerning what could have been done to prevent the injury to Clements. Observations by Webster regarding that matter can only be made in retrospect. A Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States addressed this issue:
"...
Carufel v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co., 286 F.2d 193, 195 (6th Cir.1961). The trial court was correct in excluding those portions of the Webster deposition.
Clements maintains that error was committed when the trial court interrupted Clements's counsel on redirect examination of the witness Willie Wellbern and asked questions from the bench, and, after objection, making statements in the presence of jury about the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court asked that witness the following questions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Staples
...1113 (Ala.1985); Brown v. Schultz, 457 So.2d 388 (Ala.1984); Southern Guar. Ins. Co. v. Pittman, 439 So.2d 7 (Ala.1983); Clements v. Webster, 425 So.2d 1058 (Ala.1982); Bell v. Chisom, 421 So.2d 1239 (Ala.1982); Evans v. Kendred, 362 So.2d 206 (Ala.1978); Pipkin v. Southern Elec. & Pipefitt......
-
Clark v. Floyd
...of one's job title or even out of the amount of control, in and of itself, which the co-employee exerts at the workplace. Clements v. Webster, 425 So.2d 1058 (Ala.1982). To impose liability on a defendant co-employee in this state, the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving the elements ......
-
E & S Facilities, Inc. v. Precision Chipper Corp.
...is due to be given considerable weight over affidavits of counsel and is deemed to be conclusive for this appeal. See Clements v. Webster, 425 So.2d 1058 (Ala.1982) (absolute truth imputed to record); Richards v. Elrod, 284 Ala. 19, 221 So.2d 378 (1969); Gorum v. Samuel, 274 Ala. 690, 151 S......
-
Morris v. Merritt Oil Co.
...fact that a [co-employee] is in an administrative or supervisory position alone does not make that person liable.' Clements v. Webster, 425 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Ala.1982).... As this Court stated " ' "Liability of a co-employee must be predicated upon the breach of a personal duty owed to the ......
-
Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal
...taken. Such designation of judgment or order shall not, however, limit the scope of appellate review."); see also Clements v. Webster, 425 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 1982) (stating that notice of appeal did not limit appeal to either final judgment or order denying new trial).83. See 16A Charles Ala......