Slagle v. Reynolds Metals Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1977 |
| Citation | 344 So.2d 1216 |
| Parties | Rudolph SLAGLE v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY et al. SC 2231. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Lloyd W. Gathings, Edmond & Vines, Birmingham, for appellant.
Robert D. Hunter and Lyman H. Harris, Birmingham, for appellees.
Appellant, Rudolph Slagle, filed suit for the wrongful death of his minor son in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County against Reynolds Metals Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Luther Parker, J. F. Newman, Danny Altman, Ed Miller and Leon Folsom. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Reynolds Metals Company. We affirm.
Briefly, the facts are as follows:
On August 6, 1974, Dennis Slagle, a minor, was employed by Reynolds Metals Company, a corporation, located in Sheffield, Alabama. On that date, the minor, in the course of his employment with Reynolds, was electrocuted. The deceased was not survived by any dependents. It is undisputed that Reynolds paid the following expenses on account of the minor employee's death which included $588.75 in funeral expenses, $132 to Colbert County Hospital, and $35.00 to Dr. R. F. Bowen. In addition, Reynolds paid $100 to the Second Injury Trust Fund.
The basic issue on appeal is whether the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy against the employer for the death of a minor employee when the fatal injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and when the minor employee died leaving no dependents.
Appellant concedes that where an employee is fatally injured in an employment related accident, and where the employee dies leaving dependents who are paid compensation by the employer, the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy against the employer. However, appellant contends that where a minor employee dies leaving no dependents, he is provided with no remedy for the death of his minor son. Appellant contends that Reynolds had a common law duty to provide a reasonably safe place for its employee to work and due to a breach of that duty, appellant, as the parent of the deceased employee, can maintain an action for injuries causing the death of the minor child under Tit. 7, § 119, Code. We disagree.
Where an employee is fatally injured in a work-related accident, compensation by way of damages is provided by the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act, Tit. 26, § 253, et seq., Code. Section 272 of the Act, reads as follows:
'Excluding other remedies.--The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of said employee, his personal representative, Parent, dependents or next of kin, At common law, by statute or otherwise on account of said injury, loss of services or death; and except as herein provided in article 1 and article 2 () of this chapter, No employer included within the terms of this chapter, shall be held civilly liable for any personal injury to or death of any workman due to accident while engaged in the service or business of the employer, the cause of which accident originates in the employment; but nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve any employer from criminal prosecution for failure or neglect to perform any duty imposed by law.' (Emphasis added.)
Without question, the above-mentioned statute provides immunity for an employer for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. Furthermore, this section expressly includes any claims against the employer by the parent of an employee. An action brought under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation laws is purely statutory. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Rigdon, 418 F.Supp. 540, 542 (S.D. Ala.1976); Boatright v. Dothan Aviation Corp., 278 Ala. 142, 176 So.2d 500 (1965). A lengthy discussion of the cases interpreting the Workmen's Compensation statutes is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that the rights and remedies granted by the Act against an employer for injuries resulting from a work-related accident are exclusive. Patterson v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 196 F.2d 947 (CA 5, 1952); Gunter v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., Ala., 340 So.2d 749 (1976); De Arman v. Ingalls Iron Works Co., 258 Ala. 205, 61 So.2d 764 (1952) (dictum); Owens v. Ward, 49 Ala.App. 293, 271 So.2d 251 (1972).
Appellant contends that if Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act does provide the exclusive remedy for the death of a minor employee leaving no dependents, it violates due process and equal protection guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions, at least to the extent that the employer is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slagle v. Parker
...limited, or repealed as the legislature sees fit, except as to causes of action which have already accrued. Slagle v. Reynolds Metals Company, 344 So.2d 1216 (Ala.1977); Pickett v. Matthews, 238 Ala. 542, 192 So. 261 (1939). Thus in the previous appeal of the Slagle case, 344 So.2d 1216, th......
-
Britt v. Shelby County Health Care Auth.
...there was no recovery under the Act, the Act did not provide the exclusive remedy. The court disagreed, stating: "In Slagle v. Reynolds Metals Co., 344 So.2d 1216 (Ala.1977), this court held that Alabama's Workmen's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy against an employer for the ......
-
Dependents of Nosser v. Natchez Jitney Jungle, Inc.
...(5th Cir.1952). 268 So.2d at 363. Likewise, in Alabama, compensation has been denied to non-dependent parents. In Slagle v. Reynolds Metals Company, 344 So.2d 1216 (Ala.1977), the employer was held to be immune from claims of the non-dependent parents. The result was the same in Lackey v. J......
-
Lee v. LKQ Birmingham, Inc. (Ex parte LKQ Birmingham, Inc.)
...is purely statutory in nature. Fort James Operating Co. v. Irby, 911 So.2d 727, 734 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (citing Slagle v. Reynolds Metals Co., 344 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Ala.1977) ). The Act is a specific and comprehensive system of law for dealing with workplace injuries and ‘ “creates rights ........
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...Leg., Reg. Sess. § 12(a) (Ala. 2016).246. Chapman, 101 So. at 880-81.247. Id. at 881.248. Id.; see also Slagle v. Reynolds Metals Co., 344 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Ala. 1977) (dismissing the section 13 argument without any analysis except for a citation to Chapman).249. According to Reed v. Bruns......