Harter Concrete Products, Inc. v. Harris

• Decision Date: 20 March 1979
• Docket Number: Nos. 52446,52601,s. 52446
• Citation: 1979 OK 38,592 P.2d 526
• Parties: HARTER CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., David Harter and Harley Bradshaw, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Carmon C. HARRIS, Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, Respondent.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 526

592 P.2d 526

HARTER CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., David Harter and Harley Bradshaw, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Carmon C. HARRIS, Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, Respondent.

Nos. 52446, 52601.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 20, 1979.

Original proceeding on application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus. Petitioner seeks to require respondent to dismiss it from the above action.

JURISDICTION ASSUMED: WRIT ISSUED.

Paul F. Fernald, Keller & Fernald, Oklahoma City, Donald N. Bykerk, Prague, for petitioners.

Earl D. Mills and David W. Edmonds, Foliart, Mills & Niemeyer, Oklahoma City, for respondent.

DOOLIN, Justice:

James and his wife, Bonnie Williams, filed a personal injury action against Vassar Manufacturing Company (Vassar) ¹ alleging causes of action sounding in negligence and manufacturers' products liability. James, an employee of petitioners herein, was injured on the job. He had previously filed a worker's compensation claim against employers and their insurance carrier. Pursuant to this claim, employers had fully satisfied all obligations under the Oklahoma Worker's Compensation Act (the Act).

Following the filing of the personal injury action, defendant Vassar initiated a third party complaint against employers. Vassar sought indemnification or contribution by employers for any judgment which might be rendered against it, claiming plaintiffs' injuries were caused by employers' negligence. Employers filed a special demurrer to the third party action asserting they had satisfied all legal obligations owed by them through the workers' compensation claim and were immune to further suit. Respondent overruled employers' demurrer and they now seek relief by mandamus and prohibition.

It is this third party complaint that is challenged by the present original proceeding. Employers submit respondent exceeded its authority in overruling their demurrer and refusing to dismiss them from the suit.

An action under the Act is the exclusive remedy against an insured employer of an injured employee. ² 85 O.S.1971 § 12 provides in part:

"The liability prescribed in the last preceding section shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer and any of his employees, at common law or otherwise, for such injury, loss of services or death, to the employee, spouse, personal representative, parents, dependents, or any other person, * * *." (Emphasis supplied).

Vassar argues our recent decision in Laubach v. Morgan, 588 P.2d 1071, (Okl.1979) and the recently enacted contribution legislation ³ require that employers be joined as parties in order that it will not be required to pay more than its share of responsibility for plaintiffs' injuries. It further argues the above provision does not bar such action in that under this statute employer is only protected from further claims of liability by the Employee, not from claims by a third party.

These references, although raising many problems neoteric to this jurisdiction, are not pertinent to the singular issue raised herein. The sole issue now before this court is whether an employer who has satisfied his obligations to an employee under the Act, may be joined as a defendant in a third party personal injury action and thus be required to respond a second time, even though it be indirectly, to injuries the employee has sustained. In view of the above exclusive remedy, absent special circumstances, we hold it may not.

Worker's compensation legislation was enacted to provide a substitute remedy to an employee for accidental injuries received during covered employment without the burden of his proving negligence. ⁴ In exchange for this exposure the employer is protected from any other liability to the employee. ⁵ To be equitable as well as effective, this protection must extend to All liability either directly or indirectly derived from the employee's injuries.

This is the view taken by the tenth circuit in Peak Drilling Company v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, 215 F.2d 368 (10th Cir. 1954), a case arising under the Act. That court held any right to indemnity by an employer must arise out of an independent legal relationship between employer and indemnitee. This relationship must create liability apart from a duty owed to employee by indemnitee and employer to keep the employee from harm's way. Absent this legal relationship and resulting duty no right to indemnity exists. The Court took the view the third party complaint therein...