Hood v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 45854

• Decision Date: 25 January 1983
• Docket Number: No. 45854,45854
• Citation: Hood v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. App. 1983)
• Parties: Frank HOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 167

648 S.W.2d 167

Frank HOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 45854.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division One.

Jan. 25, 1983.

Motion for Rehearing/Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied March 17, 1983.

Application to Transfer Denied

April 26, 1983.

Kenneth J. Heinz, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

M. Jane Christen, Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary, Jaeckel & Keanery, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.

STEPHAN, Presiding Judge.

This appeal arises out of the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's petition for damages against his employer Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA). The dismissal was granted in response to TWA's motion asserting that plaintiff's remedies, if any, are governed exclusively by the Workers' Compensation Law. § 287.010, RSMo, 1980 Cum.Supp., et seq. A co-defendant, William C. Unash, filed an answer raising various defenses and claiming that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court acted only on TWA's motion (referring to it as one for summary judgment) and designated its dismissal of the petition as final and appealable under Rule 81.06. The only issue before us is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition as to TWA. We hold that it did not and affirm.

For his claim against TWA, plaintiff alleged that on or about April 9, 1981, he was employed by TWA at its place of business at Lambert St. Louis International Airport under the supervision of Unash, whom TWA had designated as plaintiff's supervisor. Plaintiff further alleged that while he was so employed Unash reprimanded plaintiff for failing to perform his duties and, in the course of reprimanding him, Unash spat in plaintiff's face. According to plaintiff, Unash's acts were in the scope and course of his employment, and inter alia, constituted outrageous conduct, were intentional, caused plaintiff emotional distress and humiliation in the presence of fellow employees, resulting in his loss of employment. Plaintiff sought actual damages in the amount of $50,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.

We are of the opinion that disposition of the case is controlled by § 287.120-1, RSMo 1978 which provides:

Every employer subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be liable, irrespective of negligence, to furnish compensation under the provisions of this chapter for personal injury or death of the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and shall be released from all other liability therefor...