Horney v. Guy F. Atkinson Co.

Decision Date16 March 1983
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesGaylord HORNEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GUY F. ATKINSON COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 6298.
OPINION

GEO. A. BROWN, Presiding Justice.

In this personal injury action plaintiff Gaylord Horney, appeals 1 from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Guy F. Atkinson Company (hereinafter Atkinson). The judgment is grounded upon the exclusive remedy immunity of an employer contained in Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601. Under the facts presented, the trial court held the "dual capacity" doctrine did not apply. The "dual capacity" doctrine permits an employee's personal injury action against an employer notwithstanding the existence of the employer-employee relationship.

Plaintiff was employed by a joint venture known as Melones Contractors, consisting of defendant Guy F. Atkinson Company and Gordon H. Ball, Inc. and the Arundel Corporation. The venture was the prime contractor for the construction of the New Melones Dam. Plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment while attempting to clear a jam-up in an on-site facility known as the rock plant, which sorted into various sizes the tons of rock excavated on the project.

In sum, the complaint alleged that defendant Atkinson defectively designed the plant without adequate instruction, warning devices and safeguards, and that Atkinson was engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling rock sorter plants and sold the subject sorter to Melones Contractors. Atkinson answered, alleging the action was barred by the provisions of the worker's compensation statutes. (Lab.Code, §§ 3600, 3601.) 2

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Atkinson filed the declaration of R.J. Dodson, vice president and manager of heavy construction of Atkinson, who was directly responsible for the construction work of Melones Contractors in building the dam and power plant. Attached to the declaration is a copy of the written joint venture agreement.

The declaration and agreement relate that Atkinson was the "sponsor" and managing partner for the project; that the project was very large and for that reason was undertaken by a joint venture. The employees of the project were paid on a joint venture payroll, and the joint venture maintained a separate bank account in which all project income was deposited and from which payments of all project expenses were withdrawn.

Any services performed by Atkinson with its personnel, including engineers' services in "design of construction equipment and facilities required for the construction work" were reimbursed to Atkinson at cost. One of the services performed by Atkinson as part of its obligation was to design a rock plant which, according to the declaration, was "designed particularly and uniquely for the types of rock found and used at the project site."

The declaration of Dodson states:

"The particular rock plant in question where the plaintiff was allegedly injured was totally unlike any other rock plant previously designed and used by the GUY F. ATKINSON COMPANY. The rock plant in question was unique in the following respects:

"1. The rock plant had to be located on a haul road on the side of a steep hill, and it was designed specifically to accommodate that terrain;

"2. The rock plant had to be designed specifically to handle the sizes of rock obtained from sources designated by the Corps [of Engineers] and required by the contract for construction of this particular dam;

"3. The rock plant had to be large enough to accommodate the truck-hauling units used to transport rock to the plant;

"4. The end products (the specific sizes of rock as sorted) were different from any other project; and

"5. The plant had to meet a certain production capacity. Overall, the rock plant in question was the largest plant ever utilized by the GUY F. ATKINSON COMPANY."

The engineering department of Atkinson designed the plant 3 and supervised its assembly and installation.

The actual work of assembling and installing the plant was done by employees of Melones Contractors.

The declaration states further:

"Upon completion of the Melones Project the rock plant in question was disassembled, removed from the job site, and placed in storage. It is currently being sold on a part-by-part basis. As of this date the hopper and the grizzly tower have been sold to a concrete company located in the State of Washington. Most of the remaining component parts of the rock plant are still in storage and will be sold on a piecemeal basis much as the hopper and tower were sold. The rock plant is not being sold to the public in a total assembled manner or in a complete unit."

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff filed the deposition of Frank A. Metzger, the manager of used equipment sales for Atkinson for 11 years. He was paid by Atkinson, but the time spent in disposing of equipment was reimbursed to Atkinson by the joint venture. In sum, his testimony related that he spent approximately 10 percent of his time selling used component parts of rock plants. He had sold such parts on five other dams after the projects were completed. The equipment was advertised and exposed to the market through various trade publications. After the plants were dismantled he would list and advertise the component parts for sale. He had never advertised or sold a complete plant. Some of the parts were on occasion kept for future use on other projects. The sale of common items such as conveyor belts and screens resulted in a 50 to 75 percent recovery of the cost, but beyond those items the diversification in types of plants and the degree of specialized design for particular jobs prevented the establishment of an average price upon sale.

When the equipment was sold the proceeds would go to Melones Contractors. Atkinson received no fee for selling the equipment. The cost of Metzger's services and the sale were reimbursed by Melones Contractors to Atkinson.

Also submitted was a list of 20 construction jobs dating back to 1955 for which materials plants or concrete plants had been constructed, and from which the component parts had been sold.

DISCUSSION

An employee of a joint venture is an employee of each individual member of the joint venture. As such, a member of a joint venture is entitled to the protection of the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code. (Reed v. Industrial Acc. Com. [1937] 10 Cal.2d 191, 193, 73 P.2d 1212; Sonberg v. Bergere [1963] 220 Cal.App.2d 681, 682-683, 34 Cal.Rptr. 59.)

There are limitations to the doctrine. Thus, in Dorado v. Knudsen Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 605, 163 Cal.Rptr. 477, a case upon which appellant relies, the complaint alleged Knudsen Corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing plastic crates for dairy products. The plaintiff, who was employed by Todds Food Company, was injured by an allegedly dangerous, defective and unsafe condition of the crates. He sued Knudsen Corporation for personal injuries. Knudsen Corporation, which also was a general partner in Todds Food Company, claimed immunity from suit by reason of the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code. The appeal court held the action could be maintained.

The court held that Knudsen was engaged in the separate and independent business of manufacturing and selling plastic crates to the public and to Todds Food Company. That function was not part of its duties or responsibilities as general partner in Todds Food Company. Thus, Knudsen was operating in two separate and independent capacities--one as a manufacturer and seller of plastic crates and one as a processor and distributor of milk and other food products. As the Dorado court stated: "The documentary evidence filed by Knudsen in support of its motion clearly demonstrates that it occupies a dual capacity in respect to Todds Food Company ...." (Id., at p. 611, 163 Cal.Rptr. 477.) The court concluded that under these circumstances the "dual capacity" doctrine enunciated by this court in Douglas v. E. & J. Gallo Winery (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 103, 137 Cal.Rptr. 797 applied.

Clearly, the Dorado case is distinguishable from the case at bench. The Dorado court accurately distinguished the cases of Reed v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra, 10 Cal.2d 191, 73 P.2d 1212, and Sonberg v. Bergere, supra, 220 Cal.App.2d 681, 34 Cal.Rptr. 59, and others, stating "in those cases ... it was clear that the injurious conduct of the partner or other actor occurred while such party 'was acting on behalf of the partnership.' (Sonberg v. Bergere, supra, 220 Cal.App.2d at p. 682, 34 Cal.Rptr. 59.) These cases stand only for the proposition that a partnership is not an entity separate from its partners. They do not hold, or even suggest, that partners cannot be subjected to civil liability to employees of the partnership in respect of their activities while they are not acting on behalf of the partnership." (Dorado v. Knudsen Corp., supra, 103 Cal.App.3d at pp. 613-614, 163 Cal.Rptr. 477.)

In the instant case the declarations and agreement of joint venture establish, without conflict, that this case falls within the rules enunciated in Reed and Sonberg. In providing the engineering and other services and component parts for the design and construction of the rock plant, Atkinson was acting on behalf of the joint venture. These activities were part of the obligation of Atkinson as a sponsor and joint venturer under the partnership agreement. Atkinson was not acting in a capacity other than that of a joint venturer. It follows that Atkinson is entitled to the protection of Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601, subdivision (a).

There is yet another...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 2 d5 Janeiro d5 1987
    ... ... (Perry v. Heavenly Valley (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 495, 500-505, 209 Cal.Rptr. 771; Horney v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 923, 930, fn. 4, 190 Cal.Rptr. 18.) So far as appear there is no legislative history to the contrary ... ...
  • Richmond v. Wampanoag Tribal Court Cases
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • 21 d5 Abril d5 2006
    ... ... v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 406, 213 Cal. Rptr. 155); or in an answer (Homey v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 923 190 Cal.Rptr. 18) ...          Greener v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1036, 863 P.2d 784, ... ...
  • McLandrich v. Southern California Edison Co., Civil No. 95-0151-B (RBB).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 16 d5 Fevereiro d5 1996
    ... ... See Horney v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 140 Cal.App.3d 923, 190 Cal.Rptr. 18 (1983); Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 123 Ariz. 291, 599 P.2d 247 (App.1979); ... ...
  • Greener v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 27 d1 Dezembro d1 1993
    ... ... 678; United States Borax & Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 406, 213 Cal.Rptr. 155); or in an answer (Horney v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 923, 190 Cal.Rptr. 18) ... Page 544 ...         [863 P.2d 789] The challenge may not, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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