Hayes v. Pratchett

Decision Date05 June 2012
Docket NumberNo. 2751,Sept. Term, 2010.,2751
Citation45 A.3d 861,205 Md.App. 459
PartiesDaniel C. HAYES v. Darien J. PRATCHETT.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Erick D. Frye, Upper Marlboro, MD, for Appellant.

Christopher R. Dunn (John W. Leonard, DeCaro, Doran, Siciliano, Gallacher, & DeBlasis, LLP), for Appellee.

Panel: KRAUSER, C.J., WRIGHT, BERGER, JJ.

WRIGHT, J.

On July 26, 2006, the appellant, Daniel C. Hayes, and the appellee, Darien J. Pratchett, were involved in an automobile accident in the parking lot of BJ's Wholesale Club located on Ballpark Road in Bowie, Maryland. Hayes was an employee of BJ's Wholesale Club Tire Center, and Pratchett was his supervisor in the tire center. On August 15, 2006, Hayes signed a release agreement resolving any claims that he may have had against BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. arising from the accident. On February 11, 2009, Hayes filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County asserting a single count of negligence against Pratchett. On October 22, 2010, Pratchett filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Hayes was precluded from bringing a civil action against Pratchett by the Maryland's Workers' Compensation Statute. Specifically, Pratchett asserted that, as a supervisor performing a nondelegable duty of the employer in the course of his employment, he was immune from civil suit pursuant to Md.Code (1991, 2008 Repl.Vol.), § 9–509 of the Labor & Employment Article (“LE”) 1. On January 10, 2011, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Pratchett. On the same day, Hayes filed this appeal. He presents a single issue for us to decide:

Whether the circuit court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the exclusive remedy available to appellant was through the Workers' Compensation Statute?

Facts

In proceedings before the circuit court, the parties agreed to present a joint statement of facts, which provided as follows:

This case arises out of an automobile accident that took place in the parking lot of BJ's Wholesale Club, located on Ballpark Road in Bowie, Maryland, on July 26, 2006. At all relevant times, ... Hayes[ ] was a BJ's Wholesale Club employee who was leaving the BJ's parking lot, and ... Pratchett[ ] was a BJ's Wholesale Club supervisor in the tire service center. While ... Pratchett supervised ... Hayes during their work together in the tire center, at the time of the accident in question, [Pratchett] was neither supervising nor directing [Hayes] as [Hayes's] shift had ended for that particular day.

At approximately 1:40 PM on the day in question, [Pratchett], while working, was in the process of moving a customer's 1998 Honda Accord from a parking space into the tire service center. Due to the nature of the parking space and surrounding vehicles, [Pratchett's] vision to the right of the vehicle was obstructed. Accordingly, [Pratchett] sounded the car's horn to alert those nearby, and then proceeded to reverse the vehicle out of the space. [Hayes], proceeding through the same area of the parking lot in his own 2002 Ford Taurus, collided with the vehicle operated by [Pratchett], and both automobiles sustained damage.

On December 22, 2010, the circuit court held a hearing on Pratchett's motion for summary judgment. At the end of the hearing, the court granted Pratchett's motion concluding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and “that on the basis of the facts of this case ... there is a nondelegable duty that the employer has and ... the Plaintiff['s] exclusive remedy here is under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Statute.” Important to the court's decision was that the accident took place in the BJ's parking lot, and that the supervisor was driving a customer's car, not his own.

Standard of Review

In granting a motion for summary judgment, the circuit court must determine “that there are no genuine disputes as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Laing v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 180 Md.App. 136, 152, 949 A.2d 26 (2008) (citing Md. Rule 2–501). “In reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, appellate courts focus on whether the trial court's grant of the motion was legally correct.” Id. at 152–53, 949 A.2d 26 (citation omitted). See also Logan v. LSP Marketing Corp., 196 Md.App. 684, 703, 11 A.3d 355 (2010), cert. denied,418 Md. 588, 16 A.3d 978 (2011).

Discussion

Hayes argues that he is entitled to a reversal because the duty to safely operate a motor vehicle is personal to each driver and not a nondelegable duty of the employer. He asserts that as the facts demonstrated, Pratchett was operating a motor vehicle at the time of the accident and was not acting as a supervisor or in a supervisory capacity with regard to Hayes. According to Hayes, because his complaint alleged breach of due care and not negligent entrustment or failure to provide a safe environment, it is irrelevant that Pratchett was driving a customer's vehicle, as Pratchett's direct act of negligence caused the collision.

Pratchett responds that, under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, he was responsible for providing a safe work environment for his employees at the time of the underlying accident. According to Pratchett, the safety of the workplace was a nondelegable duty on the part of each party's employer, BJ's Wholesale Club. In other words, if Pratchett was negligent in moving a customer's vehicle as alleged, then he was negligent in the performance of the employer's nondelegable duty to maintain a safe work environment for Hayes and other subordinate employees. Pratchett contends that, because routine work assignments and supervision are aspects of the nondelegable duty of providing employees a safe place to work, he is entitled to immunity as he was working within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the circuit court erred in determining that Hayes's sole remedy for his injuries arising from the accident with Pratchett was through the Workers' Compensation Statute.

“The Maryland Workers' Compensation Statute was enacted in 1914 to compensate employees who were injured in the course of their employment.” Brady v. Ralph Parsons Co., 308 Md. 486, 496, 520 A.2d 717 (1987). The Statute “embodies a comprehensive scheme to withdraw all phases of extra-hazardous employments from private controversy and to providesure and certain relief for injured [workers], their families and dependents regardless of questions of fault.” Hastings v. Mechalske, 336 Md. 663, 672, 650 A.2d 274 (1994) (citation omitted). It was intended to replace the common law tort system, which had previously been an injured employee's sole means of obtaining compensation for work related injuries, and had proven to be inadequate for this purpose. Brady, 308 Md. at 496, 520 A.2d 717. Moreover, the Statute was intended to strike a balance between the interests of workers and employees. Id. As the Court of Appeals noted in Johnson v. Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., 305 Md. 246, 250, 503 A.2d 708 (1986):

Workers lost their right to sue their employers for negligence but gained the right to quick and certain compensation for injuries sustained during the course of their employment, regardless of fault. See Wood v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 260 Md. 651, 660–61, 273 A.2d 125, 131 (1971); Victory Sparkler Co. [ v. Francks,] 147 Md. [368, 376–77, 128 A. 635, 638 (1925).] In return, employers lost their defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and fellow servant rule but gained the advantage of having their liability limited. Wood, supra, 260 Md. at 660–61, 273 A.2d at 131;Victory Sparkler Co., supra, 147 Md. at 376–77, 128 A. at 638;see also 2A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 65.11 (1983).

Maryland's Workers' Compensation Statute requires that employers of covered employees provide compensation for accidental personal injuries sustained by the covered employee regardless of the employer's fault. LE § 9–501.2 The Statute further states that “the compensation provided under this title to a covered employee or the dependents of a covered employee is in place of any right of action against any person.” LE § 9–509(b).3 However, where a third party is responsible for the covered employee's injury, the covered employee may either make a claim under the statute or bring an action for damages against the third party. LE § 9–901.4 As the Court of Appeals stated in Hastings, 336 Md. at 673, 650 A.2d 274, a covered employee's ability to sue a third party for damages arising from the employee's injury includes coemployees of the injured party.

Although LE § 9–901 does not preclude tort actions between coemployees, it does exclude an action in tort by an employee against his employer. Hill v. Knapp, 396 Md. 700, 711, 914 A.2d 1193 (2007); Suburban Hosp. v. Kirson, 362 Md. 140, 145–46, 763 A.2d 185 (2000); Athas v. Hill, 300 Md. 133, 137, 476 A.2d 710 (1984); Hutzell v. Boyer, 252 Md. 227, 232, 249 A.2d 449 (1969). This immunity from suit can extend to supervisory coemployees when the supervisor is performing a nondelegable duty of the employer:

[A] supervisory coemployee performing a nondelegable duty of the employer—such as providing a safe place to work—does not thereby assume a personal duty toward his or her fellow employees. [ Athas v. Hill, 300 Md. 133, 148, 476 A.2d 710 (1984) ]. Such an employee is entitled to the benefit of the employer's immunity, even though he or she negligently performed the employer's duty.5

Hastings, 336 Md. at 673, 650 A.2d 274.Kruse v. Schieve, 61 Wis.2d 421, 213 N.W.2d 64 (1973),6 which the Athas and Hastings Courts cited, is instructive:

“The duty of proper supervision is a duty owed by a corporate officer or supervisory employee to the employer, not to a fellow employee. Under what circumstances can a duty be owed to a fellow employee additional to and different from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Yaffe v. Scarlett Place Residential Condo., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 5 de junho de 2012
  • Shilling v. Thomas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 16 de março de 2017
    ...Shilling an independent duty of care and breached that duty, he could be liable to Shilling innegligence. E.g., Hayes v. Pratchett, 45 A.3d 861 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012) (concluding that supervisor "as the driver of a motor vehicle, . . . owe[d] a personal duty of care to all other traveler......
  • Sweeny v. Davis, 116
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 30 de julho de 2019
    ...for breaching duties owed to the employer, including as here, the duty to maintain a safe workplace. Id. at 149. Our decision in Hayes v. Pratchett is not to the contrary. 205 Md. App. 459 (2012). In Hayes, a supervisory coemployee, Pratchett, injured his co-worker, Hayes, while driving a c......
4 books & journal articles
  • Third Party Cases
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Workers' Compensation Manual (MSBA) (2024 Ed.) Chapter One The Maryland Workers' Compensation Act
    • Invalid date
    ...Blue v. Arrington, 221 Md. App. 308, 108 A.3d 602 (2015). [362] Athas v. Hill, 300 Md. 133, 476 A.2d 710 (1984); Hayes v. Pratchett, 205 Md. App. 459, 45 A.3d 861 (2012).[363] Suburban Hosp. v. Kirson, 362 Md. 140, 763 A.2d 185 (2000); Hastings v. Mechalske, 336 Md. 663, 650 A.2d 274 (1994)......
  • Third Party Cases
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Workers' Compensation Manual (MSBA) Chapter One The Maryland Workers' Compensation Act
    • Invalid date
    ...Blue v. Arrington, 221 Md. App. 308, 108 A.3d 602 (2015).[359] Athas v. Hill, 300 Md. 133, 476 A.2d 710 (1984); Hayes v. Pratchett, 205 Md. App. 459, 45 A.3d 861 (2012).[360] Suburban Hosp. v. Kirson, 362 Md. 140, 763 A.2d 185 (2000); Hastings v. Mechalske, 336 Md. 663, 650 A.2d 274 (1994).......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Workers' Compensation Manual (MSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...110 A.2d 666 (1955)...........................................................................................44 Hayes v. Pratchett, 205 Md. App. 459, 45 A.3d 861 (2012).....................................................................................51 Hayes v. Wang, 107 Md. App. 598, 6......
  • I. [§ 14.1] Workers' Compensation
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Pleading Causes of Action in Maryland (MSBA) (2022 Ed.) Chapter 14 Workers' Compensation
    • Invalid date
    ...parties, and subrogation, see Chaney Enter. Ltd. P'ship, 158 Md. App. at 17 (2004). A good overview can be found in Hayes v. Pratchett, 205 Md. App. 459, 464-56, 45 A.3d 861, 865 (2012): "The Maryland Workers' Compensation Statute was enacted in 1914 to compensate employees who were injured......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT