State ex rel. Maryland Heights Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Ferriss
Decision Date | 11 September 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 61116,61116 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. MARYLAND HEIGHTS CONCRETE CONTRACTORS, INC., Relator, v. The Honorable Franklin R. FERRISS, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Peter B. Hoffman, Joseph M. Kortenhof, Kortenhof & Ely, St. Louis, for relator.
Lawrence B. Grebel, Donald L. James, Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary, Jaeckel, Keaney & Brown, St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in prohibition. The case arises out of a wrongful death action filed by the survivors of Donald Meiser against Maryland Heights Concrete Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter "Maryland"). Maryland was a subcontractor of Meiser's employer, Charter Development Corporation (hereinafter "Charter"). The plaintiffs alleged that Meiser was killed at a construction site by the explosion of a space heater due to Maryland's negligence. Maryland denied negligence on its part, asserted contributory negligence by Meiser, and filed a third-party petition against several third-party defendants, including Charter, asserting that each third-party defendant shared responsibility for the death. Charter moved to dismiss the third-party petition against it, asserting that as Meiser's employer, its liability under The Workmen's Compensation Law excluded all other liability. See section 287.120, RSMo 1978. After argument on October 20, 1978, respondent Judge Ferriss indicated his intention to sustain Charter's motion to dismiss. Our preliminary rule in prohibition issued December 18, 1978.
The question is whether Charter, as Meiser's employer, can be made a defendant in the underlying case under the authority of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Whitehead & Kales Company, 566 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. banc 1978).
We need not examine the breadth and scope of Whitehead & Kales, supra, because the question is answered by section 287.120.1, RSMo 1978, which provides:
1. Every employer subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be liable, irrespective of negligence, to furnish compensation under the provisions of this chapter for personal injury or death of the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and shall be released from all other liability therefor whatsoever, whether to the employee or any other person. . . . "
The statute, supra, is clear and unambiguous. It operates to release the employer from all other liability. In McDonnell Air. Corp. v. Hartman-Hanks-Walsh P. Co., 323 S.W.2d 788 (Mo.1959), the court allowed the non-employer defendant to maintain an indemnity action against the employer of the injured employee but only on the basis that the employer defendant (Hartman ) had breached a duty it expressly agreed (contracted) to perform with the non-employer (McDonnell ). The rationale of the McDonnell case, supra, supports the conclusion that, aside from the exception noted therein, the employer is not liable to the non-employer defendant for any sums that non-employer party is liable for to the injured plaintiff-employee in tort.
Other cases cited by relator have been considered. The court holds that section 287.120.1, RSMo 1978, statutorily immunizes Charter, the employer, from common-law liability to Maryland Heights Concrete Contractors, Inc., and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Whitehead & Kales Company, supra, does not remove the immunity conferred by section 287.120.1, supra.
Relator contends section 287.120.1 violates sections 2, 10, and 14 of Art. 1, Mo.Const., 1 and the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, amendments 5 and 14. Similar attacks were made upon the Florida statute which immunized the employer from liability in tort for contribution in a suit by a negligent third-party defendant. The contentions were rejected in Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978). In speaking about workmen's compensation, the court stated at 429:
And thereafter, in addressing the constitutional challenge, the court stated at 429-430:
The holding of Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith, supra, is sound and applicable here.
The court holds section 287.120.1, RSMo 1978, is not unconstitutional for any of the reasons asserted by relator in this case.
The respondent trial judge was correct. The third-party petition seeking contribution from the employer Charter should be dismissed. Our preliminary rule in prohibition is quashed.
DONNELLY, J., dissents in separate dissenting opinion filed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Renfrow v. Gojohn
... ... efficacy of interspousal immunity in this state. Ebel v. Ferguson, 478 S.W.2d 334 (Mo.banc) ... See also State ex rel. Maryland Heights Concrete Contractors Inc. v ... ...
-
Parks v. Union Carbide Corp.
... ... Coffelt, Roberts, Heneghan & Coffelt, Inc"., St. Louis, for Union Carbide Corp ... \xC2" ... R. Co. v. Whitehead & Kales Co., supra. State ex rel., etc. v. Ferriss, 588 S.W.2d 489 (Mo ... of your employees, independent contractors and customers in this respect. You agree to have ... concrete two exceptions to the rule announced in Missouri ... Maryland Heights Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Ferriss, ... ...
-
Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.
... ... , where people and goods routinely cross State and national borders, is that disputes may ... Y.S.2d 513, 213 N.E.2d 796 [conflicting Maryland and Pennsylvania laws governing wrongful death ... ], the employer and the State.' " (State ex rel. Maryland Hgts. Concrete Contrs. v. Ferriss, 588 ... ...
-
Fisher v. State Highway Com'n of Mo.
... ... of other states, particularly the Maryland Constitution of 1864. David D. March, Charles D ... to work without compensation, State ex rel. Scott v. Roper, 688 S.W.2d 757, 768-69 (Mo. banc ... acceptance doctrine, which relieves contractors of liability to those not parties to the contract ... Maryland Heights Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Ferriss, 588 S.W.2d ... ...