Mauch v. Stanley Structures, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 5541,5541 |
| Citation | 641 P.2d 1247 |
| Parties | Nancy MAUCH, Personal Representative and Administratrix of the Estate of Gary Mauch, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STANLEY STRUCTURES, INC., and various other John Doe defendants, Appellees(Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Georg Jensen and Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, for appellant.
Todd S. Welch of Godfrey & Sundahl, Cheyenne, for appellees.
Steven F. Freudenthal, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Carl J. Hildebrand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the State of Wyo.
Before ROSE, C. J., and RAPER, THOMAS, ROONEY and BROWN, JJ.
Gary Mauch, an employee of appellee-defendant (hereinafter referred to as Stanley Structures), was killed during the course of his employment when he inhaled some concrete dust after falling into a pile of the dust. Stanley Structures was covered by the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, § 27-12-101, W.S.1977, et seq., when the accident occurred. A complaint was subsequently filed against Stanley Structures 1 by appellant Nancy Mauch as personal representative and administratrix of the estate of Gary Mauch. The complaint alleged that Gary Mauch's death was caused by the gross negligence of Stanley Structures.
Stanley Structures filed a motion to dismiss the complaint citing § 27-12-103(a), W.S.1977 2 of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Appellant filed an amended complaint alleging that the action was not barred by the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act because (1) Stanley Structures was grossly negligent, (2) the employment activity of Gary Mauch was illegal and unlawful, (3) the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act is unconstitutional, and (4) the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act does not bar an action brought on behalf of the survivors of the deceased. Stanley Structures moved for the dismissal of the amended complaint again asserting § 27-12-103(a) as a bar. The amended complaint was dismissed. In appealing from that dismissal, appellant presents the following issues:
Act as a bar to the suit against the deceased's employer. The district court granted the motion and gave appellant ten days to file an amended complaint. 3
We affirm.
We have recently addressed the philosophy, background and purpose of the Worker's Compensation Act, § 27-12-101, et seq., in Meyer v. Kendig, Wyo., 641 P.2d 1235 (1982), and we will not repeat that there said except to note that the act was the legislative embodiment of compromise between employers and employees who recognized the need for a new system to compensate employees for employment-related injuries.
Appellant argues that § 27-12-103(a) cannot be said to limit actions brought by the surviving relatives or administratrix of the deceased's estate, because to do so would render the act unconstitutional by encompassing a broader limitation than allowed by Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. 4 Appellant reads Section 27-12-103(a) states that the rights and remedies provided by the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act " * * * are in lieu of all other rights and remedies against any employer * * *." And Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution states that the right to compensation " * * * shall be in lieu of and shall take the place of any and all rights of action against any employer * * *." Clearly excluded by this language are actions against a deceased's employer by the surviving relatives or administrator of the deceased. The immunity from actions through, as well as by, the deceased granted by § 27-12-103(a) and Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution is part of the compromise which forms the foundation for worker's compensation laws.
the constitutional amendment as limiting the action by an employee, whereas the statute limits the action by employees and their dependents. Appellant ignores the other provisions of the statute and of Art. 10, § 4.
Appellant next argues that the immunity provision of § 27-12-103(a) should be construed to mean that employers should have the same liability for culpable negligence as do co-employees. Again, this argument would have us ignore the clear language of that section and it disregards the distinction between employers and employees.
In Markle v. Williamson, Wyo., 518 P.2d 621, 624 (1974), we rejected the "bald-faced fiction" that a co-employee becomes merged in the employer. There was no basis then and there is no basis now for such a contention in Wyoming.
The language of § 27-12-103(a) is clear in its limitation of actions against employers, and its separate limitation of actions against co-employees. 5
As we said in Barnette v. Doyle, Wyo., 622 P.2d 1349, 1353 (1981):
* * *"
The immunity from suit exists for an employer contributing to the worker's compensation fund without regard to negligence, whether culpable or ordinary.
Next appellant raises two constitutional issues. First, she contends that § 27-12-103(a), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 34 of the Wyoming Constitution. Since Art. 1, § 34 is equivalent to the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler, Wyo., 606 P.2d 310, 332 (1980), reh. denied, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824, 101 S.Ct. 86, 66 L.Ed.2d 28 (1980), and appellant has failed to cite any federal authority, we will treat the issue as being raised under the Wyoming Constitution. Art. 1, § 34 of the Wyoming Constitution provides: "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation." Second, she contends that § 27-12-103(a) violates Art. 3, § 27 of the Wyoming Constitution which prohibits enactment of special laws.
Again, we recently addressed the constitutionality of § 27-12-103(a) with reference to these two constitutional provisions, Meyer v. Kendig, supra. And, again, we will not repeat that there said with reference to the standards by which we are governed when the constitutionality of a statute is assailed and with reference to the basis upon which the section satisfies these constitutional requirements. We do note that the contention in the Meyer v. Kendig case was directed to the alleged impropriety in granting immunity to a co-employee for his acts of ordinary negligence, whereas appellant here contends it to be improper to make a co-employee liable for his culpable negligence without also making the employer liable for its culpable negligence.
Appellant has failed to meet her burden of showing that the distinction made between an employer and a culpably negligent employee is a classification which does not rest on a reasonable basis. It is the employer who contributes to the fund and it is the employer's contributions which fund payment to workers for those injuries not occasioned by the employer's fault or negligence. In return for that contribution, the employer is granted immunity from suit. Neither the injured employee nor the co-employee contribute to the fund. A rational basis thus exists for treating the employer differently from his employees with respect to the extent of immunity.
Appellant contends that the alleged violations by the employer of the Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Act, § 27-11-101, W.S.1977, et seq., and 29 U.S.C. § 654 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 removed the employer from the immunity granted by the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. We do not agree.
Appellant relies heavily on Hart v. Blair, Wyo., 378 P.2d 677 (1963) to support this contention. Such reliance is misplaced. In Hart, supra, the question was whether the employer's failure to obtain a work permit prior to employing a minor under the age of sixteen rendered the employment unlawful or illegal. The supreme court found that the employment was not one for which a work permit was required and, therefore, the employment was not illegal or unlawful.
To make the holding in Hart, supra, be applicable here, the question would be whether or not the employment of Gary Mauch was illegal or unlawful. Such is not the issue here presented by appellant. The employment itself was legal and lawful. The issue here presented by appellant is whether or not the employer's business was carried on in conformance with legal requirements. If the injuries or death of a worker results from the performance of the duties of a lawful and legal employment, the employer has the immunity granted by the Worker's Compensation Act. Violations of legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. Reynolds
...had the common law right to sue his employer. Baker v. Wendy's of Montana, Inc., 687 P.2d 885 (Wyo.1984); Kendig; Mauch v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 641 P.2d 1247 (Wyo.1982); The philosophy justifying the change in the law was that the worker gained by being assured a quick and certain reco......
-
Wessel v. Mapco, Inc.
...immunity was absolute regardless of whether the behavior amounted to culpable negligence or an intentional tort. Mauch v. Stanley Structures, Inc., Wyo., 641 P.2d 1247 (1982), had earlier determined that a contributory employer is immune from suit regardless of its ordinary or culpable negl......
-
Nowotny v. L & B Contract Industries, Inc.
...v. Hursh Agency, Inc., 713 P.2d 1174 (Wyo.1986); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Donahue, 674 P.2d 1276 (Wyo.1983); Mauch v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 641 P.2d 1247 (Wyo.1982). Under the circumstances of this case, it would have been fruitless to hold L & B's motion for summary judgment in abeya......
-
Barrino v. Radiator Specialty Co.
...the private remedy would in any manner affect the rights of parties under the Workers' Compensation Act. See also Mauch v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 641 P.2d 1247 (Wyo.1982). Neither can an injured employee escape the exclusivity of the Act by bringing a civil action against the employer ba......