Parker v. Energy Development Co.
Decision Date | 05 December 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 84-55,84-55 |
Citation | 691 P.2d 981 |
Parties | Bruce PARKER, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO., an Iowa corporation, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
John R. Hursh and Holly Brown of Central Wyoming Law Associates, P.C., Riverton, for appellant.
John A. MacPherson and Catherine MacPherson of Johnson, MacPherson & Noecker, Rawlins, for appellee.
Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
This appeal comes here for--among other reasons--the resolution of the question which asks whether an employer is immune from "intentional or culpably negligent conduct" 1 resulting in an employee's injury or death under Wyoming's worker's compensation law.
The facts necessary to a decision on this issue are contained in the appellant's brief. There it is said:
The complaint alleged culpable negligence and the commission of an intentional tort against the person of Bruce Parker by Energy Development Co., an Iowa corporation which was Bruce Parker's employer and which was contributing to Parker's account in the worker's compensation fund. A motion to dismiss the appellant's amended complaint was filed and granted on the ground that any and all claims by employee Parker against employer Energy Development Co. are foreclosed by Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution 2 and § 27-12-103(a), W.S. 1977. 3
We will affirm.
This appeal was argued in this court September 11, 1984, just two weeks after the publication of our opinion in Baker v. Wendy's of Montana, Inc., Wyo., 687 P.2d 885 (1984). 4 At argument, counsel asked that we overrule Baker v. Wendy's of Montana, Inc., supra, in which we held that the worker's compensation employer is immune from its employee's action for intentional tort by reason of the language of Art. 10, § 4 and § 27-12-103(a). This we decline to do.
In Wendy's, we reviewed the history of the worker's compensation law and we revisited the compromise between the employer and the employee which resulted in our state's Worker's Compensation Act, § 27-12-101, et seq., W.S. 1977. Through this legislation, the workers gave up their rights of action in common-law tort for injury or death in return for certain designated employer-funded benefits which were payable without regard to any but the worker's culpable negligence.
We pointed out in Baker v. Wendy's of Montana Inc. supra, that, in return for contributing to the compensation fund in behalf of the injured or the heirs of a deceased employee, the parties to the statutory contract agreed that the contributing employer would receive absolute immunity from all common-law rights of action for an employee's injury or death. We called particular attention to the language of the Art. 10, § 4 constitutional provision which said that the right of each employee to compensation from the fund
" * * * shall be in lieu of and shall take the place of any and all rights of action against any employer contributing * * * to such fund in favor of any person or persons by reason of any such injuries or death." (Emphasis added.)
We drew attention to § 27-12-103(a), which called for the same exclusive-remedy trade-off as does Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. We said in Baker that these provisions of Constitution and statute mean exactly what they say: i.e., a covered employee may not bring any cause of action whatever against his contributing employer for injury or death under any circumstances. In Baker we said, 687 P.2d at 888-889:
In Baker, there was an intentional physical work-related assault resulting in emotional injury, and there we held that if such an injury was job-related--i.e., there was a nexus between the injury and some condition of employment--then the injury occurred within the scope and/or course of employment and was compensable. We then said that a compensable injury precludes a cause of action for personal injury or death against the employer. In the case at bar, it is alleged, and for purposes of this opinion only we accept as true the fact, that the plaintiff-appellant received physical work-related injury in consequence of the contributing employer's culpable negligence and/or intentional misconduct. In deciding whether the employer's exclusive-remedy provision was a bar to a common-law intentional-tort cause of action, we said in Baker:
"The single issue for our decision in this appeal is: Was the claimed harm--i.e., assault and battery to the persons of the appellants and intentional infliction of emotional distress--a covered 'injury' within the contemplation of the Worker's Compensation Act? If the appellants' allegations of harm constitute 'injury' as conceived by the Act, and if it was inflicted when the appellants were within the scope of their employment, there cannot be an independent right of action against Wendy's because that company is the contributing employer of the appellants and would therefore be absolutely immune from suit. The test for determining whether the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act operate to prevent actions against covered employers for intentional acts of employees is whether or not the claimed injury would be compensable under the Act.
(Emphasis added.) 687 P.2d at 889.
It stands without dispute that the appellant in the case at bar was injured while he was in the course or scope of his employment--in fact, he has received worker's compensation benefits. See Cottonwood Steel Corporation v. Hansen, Wyo., 655 P.2d 1227 (1982); Matter of Willey, Wyo., 571 P.2d 248 (1977); In re Jensen, 63 Wyo. 88, 178 P.2d 897 (1947). We pointed out in Wendy's and we point out here that, in order for § 27-12-102(a)(xii), W.S. 1977 5 to be complied with, there need only be a causal connection between the injury and the course of employment. Quoting from a prior opinion, we said:
There can be no doubt but that the facts of the case at bar meet the nexus test of Willey, supra.
In affirming the trial court on this issue, we hold, then, that where the employee's injury occurs in a work-related situation, as it did here, and is in all other respects compensable, as it is here, the employer of the injured or deceased employee who is contributing to the compensation fund in behalf of the worker's account is absolutely immune from all common-law tort remedies arising...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mills v. Reynolds
...contrary to the appellants' position, prove that the elimination of co-employee suits is unconstitutional. Cf. Parker v. Energy Development Company, 691 P.2d 981 (Wyo.1984) (conflict between an earlier constitutional provision and an amended version resulting in preference being given to th......
-
Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.
...(Del.1982); Nutt v. A.C. & S., Inc., 466 A.2d 18 (Del.1983); Wilkinson v. Achber, 101 N.H. 7, 131 A.2d 51 (1957); Parker v. Energy Development Corp., 691 P.2d 981 (Wyo.1984). Some states that have included intentional torts within the exclusivity provision have statutory provisions that cal......
-
Wessel v. Mapco, Inc.
...Worker's Compensation Act immunity. This we decline to provide. A similar argument was advanced without success in Parker v. Energy Development Co., Wyo., 691 P.2d 981 (1984), where we held that the employer's immunity was absolute regardless of whether the behavior amounted to culpable neg......
-
Smith, Matter of
...not solely due to culpable negligence of the injured employee. Matter of Injury to Spera, 713 P.2d 1155 (Wyo.1986); Parker v. Energy Development Co., 691 P.2d 981 (Wyo.1984). One of the salutary purposes of worker's compensation acts is to provide specified benefits for injuries arising out......