Tarr v. Jablonski
| Decision Date | 09 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 64A03-9003-CV-130,64A03-9003-CV-130 |
| Parties | Jeffrey L. TARR, David Morrow, Defendants-Appellants, v. Nancy JABLONSKI, on her own behalf, Nancy C. Jablonski, as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel F. Jablonski, Deceased, Nancy C. Jablonski, as next friend of John Daniel Jablonski, and Bryan Kurtis Jablonski, Plaintiffs-Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Robert D. Brown, Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., Merrillville, for defendants-appellants.
Anna S. Rominger, Sendak, Sendak, Neff & Rominger, Crown Point, for plaintiffs-appellees.
This appeal was brought to determine whether a civil action may be maintained by a worker against his co-employees for alleged negligence in providing emergency medical care or whether his remedy is under the Workers' Compensation Act.
Plaintiff's decedent, Daniel Jablonski, was employed by Inland Steel as an operations clerk. On December 22, 1983, while at work, he experienced some distress and the plant medical department was called and told that Jablonski was experiencing some chest pains and needed transportation to a medical facility.
Paramedic Jeffrey Tarr and an emergency medical technician went to the safety station where Jablonski told them he had experienced some dizziness and chest pain earlier but was not experiencing either at that time. Tarr requested an ambulance to take Jablonski to the hospital. He had Jablonski lie down on a cot and began administering oxygen.
While the ambulance was on the way to the hospital, but still on Inland's premises, Jablonski went into ventricular fibrillation. Tarr began emergency life saving procedures and requested additional help. David Morrow, another of Inland's paramedics, arrived to assist Tarr. Despite their efforts Jablonski died before they arrived at the hospital. The cause of death was reported as cardiac arrest.
When this action was commenced for wrongful death the paramedics, Tarr and Morrow, sought summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs' remedies were exclusively under the Workers' Compensation Act. Relief was denied and we accepted interlocutory appeal.
We note at the outset that we are not here concerned with plaintiffs' ultimate right to recover either at common law or under the compensation act. The only question before us is whether the compensation act precludes the plaintiffs from pursuing a civil action.
The "exclusive remedy" provision is set forth in IC 22-3-2-6. It provides:
The rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to IC 22-3-2 through 22-3-6 on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death, except for remedies available under IC 16-7-3.6 [which pertains to victims of violent crimes].
IC 22-3-2-13 then provides:
Whenever an injury or death, for which compensation is payable under chapters 2 through 6 of this article shall have been sustained under circumstances creating in some other person than the employer and not in the same employ a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, the injured employee, or his dependents, in case of death, may commence legal proceedings against the other person to recover damages notwithstanding the employer's or the employer's compensation insurance carrier's payment of or liability to pay compensation under chapters 2 through 6 of this article. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the general rule has been that an injured party who is subject to the act may not maintain a civil action against a co-employee for injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc.
...policy concerning a corporation's vicarious liability for the acts of its employee-physicians." Id. at 1107; see also Tarr v. Jablonski, 569 N.E.2d 378 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), reh'g denied, trans. denied (determining the proposition under Iterman that a corporation could not be held liable for t......
-
Weldy v. Kline
...immunity from common law liability for accidents found to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Id.; Tarr v. Jablonski (1991), Ind.App., 569 N.E.2d 378, 379, trans. denied. Several recent cases have, however, carved out an exception to this exception, holding that where a co-e......
-
Russell v. Orr
...1120 (Ind.App.1988) (refusing to extend Ross exception to non-medical professionals employed by claimant's employer); Tarr v. Jablonski, 569 N.E.2d 378 (Ind.App.1991) (Ross exception not applicable to paramedic services). However, it has been recently reiterated that the "essence" of the Ro......
-
Tapia v. Heavner
...immunity from common law liability for accidents found to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Tarr v. Jablonski (1991), Ind.App., 569 N.E.2d 378 trans. denied. A number of recent decisions have carved out an exception holding that where a co-employee engages in horseplay or ......