Mize v. Conagra, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 1081,1081
• Citation: 734 S.W.2d 334
• Parties: Shirley Jean Ferguson MIZE, individually, and Shirley Jean Ferguson Mize, for the Use and Benefit of the next of kin of Charles William E. Ferguson, deceased, and Shirley Jean Ferguson Mize, the administratrix of the Estate of Charles William E. Ferguson, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONAGRA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Juanita C. CHAMBERLAIN, individually, and as surviving spouse of Harvey McClain Chamberlain, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONAGRA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 334

734 S.W.2d 334

Shirley Jean Ferguson MIZE, individually, and Shirley Jean

Ferguson Mize, for the Use and Benefit of the next of kin of

Charles William E. Ferguson, deceased, and Shirley Jean

Ferguson Mize, the administratrix of the Estate of Charles

William E. Ferguson, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONAGRA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Juanita C. CHAMBERLAIN, individually, and as surviving spouse of Harvey McClain Chamberlain, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONAGRA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1081

Court of Appeals of Tennessee Eastern Section.

Feb. 24, 1987.

Permission to Appeal Denied by

Supreme Court July 27, 1987.

Dennis B. Francis, Jenkins & Jenkins, Knoxville, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Fred H. Cagle, Jr., Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, Knoxville, for defendant-appellee.

W.J. Michael Cody, Atty. Gen. and Reporter, and Michael Lee Parsons, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for State, intervenor.

OPINION

FRANKS, Judge.

In these wrongful death actions, the trial court granted summary judgments to defendant, stating the Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries or death sustained by an employee as a result of an accident arising out of the course and scope of employment. Plaintiffs' actions were consolidated for the purpose of appeal.

The decedents were employees of defendant on September 19, 1984, when an explosion and fire occurred at defendant's manufacturing facility in Knoxville. The explosion, which resulted in the deaths of the employees, apparently resulted from an accumulation of grain dust and inadequate ventilation. Subsequently, defendant was penalized $1,000.00 for violating the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act. Decedents were working within the course and scope of their employment at the time of their deaths and plaintiffs subsequently accepted workers' compensation benefits under the provisions of the Act but also elected to bring these actions which alleged, in pertinent part:

That the defendant, Conagra, Inc. violated Tennessee Code Annotated 50-3-105, in that the defendant herein allowed a dangerous level of dust to accumulate under conditions which the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care and caution should have known that an explosion might occur resulting in death of persons in or around the premises, the grain elevator. Defendant was negligent in failing to follow the standards commonly observed by the industry, the standards advocated by leading authorities in the field, and that the defendant contributed to the lack of formal regulations in this field by positive misrepresentations concerning safety. That the defendant knew that these misrepresentations might result in loss of life and/or injury and [it] is specifically averred that this defendant was warned that the conditions that prevailed at plant at 938 Van Street in Knoxville might result in an explosion and cause serious injury but that the defendant neglected the said warnings. That the defendant's calous [sic] disregard for the life and safety of its employees such as the deceased, was a wanton and flagrant gross disregard for human life and that such actions and conduct on the part of the defendant averred to a reckless disregard for human life necessitating punitive damages.

Plaintiffs concede all accidental injuries arising under the workers' compensation law are not actionable at common law by virtue of the provisions of T.C.A., Sec. 50-6-108. ¹ Plaintiffs strongly argue, however, the defendant's violation of safety regulations constitutes an intentional tort which is not barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.

Our cases have established a breach of an employer's duty to provide a safe place to work is not equated with an actual intent to injure nor intentional tortious conduct. King v. Ross Coal Co., Inc., 684 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn.App.1984); Estate of Schultz v. Munford, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 37 (Tenn.App.1982); Cooper v. Queen, 586 S.W.2d 830 (Tenn.App.1979). While the allegations and record establish the defendant operated its business in a grossly negligent manner, we pointed out in Cooper there is a distinct difference, both factually and legally, between gross or criminal negligence and actual intent to injure. This court, in King, quoting from 2A Lawson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 68.13 at 13-5 (1982), explained:

Since the legal justification for the common-law action is the nonaccidental character of the injury from the defendant employer's standpoint, the common law liability of the employer cannot be stretched to include accidental injuries caused by the gross, wanton, wilful, deliberate, intentional, reckless, culpable, or malicious negligence, breach of statute, or other misconduct of the employer short of general intentional injury.... Even if the alleged conduct goes beyond aggravated negligence, and includes such elements as knowingly permitting a hazardous work condition to exist, knowingly ordering claimant to perform an extremely dangerous job, wilfully and unlawfully violating a safety statute, this still falls short of the kind of actual...