Summers v. Crossroads Galvanizing, LLC
| Docket Number | 4:21-CV-074-PPS-JEM |
| Decision Date | 23 August 2022 |
| Parties | CORY J. SUMMERS, as personal representative for the estate of JAMES SUMMERS, deceased, Plaintiff, v. CROSSROADS GALVANIZING, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
On March 10, 2020, a tragic incident occurred at Crossroads Galvanizing in Lafayette resulting in the death of James Summers, an employee at the facility. As he operated a crane overhead, a bypassed safety latch on the crane hook caused a 570 pound load to fall, crushing him to death. Following an investigation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Indiana Department of Labor found that Crossroads had committed several safety violations, including a “knowing” violation in connection with the sketchy safety latch that caused the load to drop. Cory J Summers, on his father's behalf, subsequently filed this wrongful death action against his father's employer Crossroads.
Crossroads seeks dismissal of the case by invoking the exclusive remedy provisions of the Indiana Workers Compensation Act (IWCA) asserting that the complaint must be dismissed because it fails to allege an intentional tort that falls outside the exclusive provenance of the workers' compensation system. [DE 23.]
Crossroads has two main arguments for why Summers' wrongful death claim is blocked by IWCA. First, Summers fails to allege facts supporting the inference that Crossroads deliberately harmed his father or knew with certainty that he would be injured as a result of the safety violations. Second, the complaint lacks sufficient detail to establish Crossroads' liability, as an employer, for any alleged torts of its employees. [DE 24; DE 39.] In response Summers argues that the complaint includes facts which, if accepted as true, are sufficient to establish “the legal elements of a wrongful death claim in Indiana, . . . [and] show the intent of Crossroads to injure” his father, and which further establish that Crossroads itself intended his father's injury. [DE 38.]
I find what happened to James Summers deeply troubling. If one believes what is in the complaint, Crossroads tolerated, and perhaps even endorsed, significant safety risks at its Lafayette facility. Indeed, that is what IOSHA's investigation revealed. I do not believe that any employee should have to work in an environment that plays fast and loose with safety procedures, and it appears that Crossroads has rightly been ordered to clean up shop. However, Indiana law is clear: unless an employee's personal injuries stem from his employer's deliberate intent to inflict an injury or actions taken with actual knowledge that an injury is certain to occur, the IWCA provides the exclusive remedy. Because Summers' complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to support the reasonable inference that Crossroads purposely harmed or certainly knew that harm would befall his father as a result of its violation of workplace safety rules, the wrongful death claim must be dismissed.
On October 15, 2021, Cory J. Summers, a citizen of Indiana, filed a civil action against Crossroads Galvanizing in Tippecanoe Superior Court. [DE 1; DE 2.] Crossroads, a limited liability company with Missouri citizenship, invoked this Court's diversity jurisdiction and removed the action. [DE 1.] Summers filed his First Amended Complaint for Damages for Wrongful Death, on February 14, 2022. [DE 20.]
The operative complaint alleges that James Summers, an employee at Crossroads Galvanizing, was killed while operating an overhead crane (Crane 1) when a “faulty hook” on the crane dropped its load, causing him to suffer serious bodily injury. [DE 20, ¶¶ 5, 7-9.] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Indiana Department of Labor investigated Crossroads' facility in the aftermath of the incident and issued a report summarizing its findings. Id., ¶ 10. IOSHA concluded that Crossroads had committed several “serious violation[s]” on the site, including failure to complete inspections of the crane at specified intervals, failure to inspect ropes once a month, failure to properly attach the load to the load block hook by means of slings or other approved devices (rather than using “in-house fabricated lifting device[s]”), failure to ensure employees wore appropriate eye or face protection, failure to properly install and inspect electrical equipment, and failure to post danger tags on Crane 1. IOSHA further concluded that Crossroads committed a “knowing” violation by “operating [Crane 1] with a bypassed safety latch on the crane hook.” Id., ¶¶ 11-14; see also id., Ex. A (Safety Order and Notification of Penalty).
As part of the investigation, an unnamed Crossroads employee stated that he had operated Crane 1 and had witnessed other employees “operating the cranes when the safety latch was not properly in place.” Id., ¶ 15. The “safety latches were routinely tied back on the cranes” - seemingly “every single day he came into work.” Id., ¶ 16. After the employee raised the issue with the safety latches to “Crossroads Galvanizing,” the employee was “informed by Crossroads Galvanizing [that] it was fine to bypass the safety latches” and keep operating the cranes without proper safety latches. Id., ¶ 17. The same employee reportedly testified that “multiple employees” had “complained [that] the safety latches on the cranes they were operating were unsafe and dangerous,” and in response, “Crossroads Galvanizing corporate officers and policy makers had a meeting to specifically address the issues about the safety latches” approximately “two to three months prior to the incident which resulted in James [Summers'] death.” [DE 20, ¶¶ 18-19.]
Unfortunately, “nothing was changed prior to the incident” as a result of this meeting. Id., ¶ 20. Some time after Crossroads held its internal meeting, “multiple employees” (again, unidentified) all had a “meeting with Crossroads Galvanizing in a break room,” and an employee ” Id. “Crossroads Galvanizing” allegedly responded with the following disturbing statement: Id., ¶ 21.
Summers further claims that “by and through its corporate officers and policy makers,” Crossroads “personally tied back the safety latch in order to make the process move faster.” Id., ¶ 23. Crossroads “personally” took this action, despite being informed “by the employees that such disregard for safety would result in injury or death,” because Crossroads “was more concerned about maximizing production than safety.” Id., ¶¶ 23-24. Elsewhere in the complaint, Summers remixes this theory, suggesting that Crossroads had established a policy about the safety procedures that someone else carried out. Summers claims that Crossroads violated safety rules “pursuant to a policy made through [its] regular decision-making channels,” Id., ¶ 26, and by enforcing this reported “policy and decision,” Crossroads' “corporate officers and policy makers” (also unnamed) “intended the injury or death of James [Summers],” Id., ¶ 27.
Summers originally asserted separate counts against Crossroads sounding in negligence and intentional tort. [DE 2.] The operative complaint takes a different tack, folding the foregoing allegations into a sole cause of action for wrongful death under Indiana law. [DE 20, ¶¶ 28-35; see also id. at 2.] Summers tries to prop up his sole count for relief with a potpourri of legal conclusions. He asserts that Crossroads “intentionally did not establish and maintain conditions of work which were reasonably safe and healthful for employees” and “free from recognized hazards” likely to cause serious bodily harm. Id., ¶ 29 (emphasis added). Despite “knowing of [the] faulty condition” of Crane 1, Crossroads “intentionally failed and refused to replace the faulty hook” on the crane. Id., ¶ 31 (emphasis added). While the employees were “unaware of the totality of the risks” they were exposed to as a result of the unsafe procedures, “Crossroads Galvanizing was on notice that injury or death to an employee working with or around Crane 1 was certain to follow” from the conduct previously outlined in the complaint. Id. ¶¶ 32-33 (emphasis added). To sum it all up, Crossroads' “intentional conduct” exposed employees to struck-by hazards, and as a “direct and proximate result” of that conduct Summers' father was killed. Id., ¶ 34. With that all said, Summers seeks as recompense damages available pursuant to the Indiana wrongful death statute, Indiana Code §§ 34-23-1-1 and 34-23-1-2. Id., ¶ 35.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a party to move for dismissal if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). At this stage of course, I must accept the complaint's allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in Summers' favor. Bradley Hotel Corp. v. Aspen Specialty Ins Co., 19 F.4th 1002, 1006 (7th Cir. 2021). However, to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), his claim for relief must be “plausible on its face.” Proft v. Raoul, 944 F.3d 686, 690 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Facial plausibility requires a plaintiff to plead sufficient “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Taha v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 781, 947 F.3d 464, 469 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial