Williams v. Price
Decision Date | 20 April 1990 |
Parties | Tracy WILLIAMS v. Gary PRICE. 88-1066. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jeffrey C. Kirby, L. Andrew Hollis, and Elizabeth R. Jones of Pittman, Hooks, Marsh, Dutton & Hollis, Birmingham, for appellant.
William Anthony Davis III and E. Martin Bloom of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for appellee.
Tracy Williams appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Gary Price in his action to recover damages based on personal injury brought under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-11 (part of the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act). We affirm.
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P. On review of a summary judgment for a defendant, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves all reasonable doubts against the defendant. Wilson v. Brown, 496 So.2d 756 (Ala.1986). The present action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.
After reviewing the record before us, we find that the following material facts are not in dispute: Williams had worked for approximately eight months as assistant pressman for Central Publishing Company ("Central") in Birmingham, Alabama, where Price was the plant manager and a co-employee of Williams. Thomas Johnson was Williams's supervisor. During the course of Williams's employment while he was attempting to unclog the paper waste removal system, 1 his legs were crushed in the paper baler. On the day that his injury occurred, Williams had reported the blockage in the paper feed chute to Johnson, who was in charge of running the baling machine. Johnson then reported the clog to Price, who directed Johnson to have someone unclog the chute, specifically telling Johnson to leave the baler on while the chute was being unclogged--not to turn off the baling machine for any reason without permission, even though Price had been warned of the danger of allowing workers to unclog the cyclone unit while the baling machine was running. In addition, there had been posted on the baler itself next to the main switch box a notice that stated, "Do Not Turn Off Unless You Ask Personnel." Subsequently, Johnson instructed Williams to unclog the baler, providing him with the necessary tools and telling him of a pipe located on the roof to use in breaking up the clog. Prior to this time, Williams had never attempted to unclog the cyclone unit.
A fork-lift raised Williams onto the back of a semi-trailer from which he had to climb to reach the top of the building. The cyclone unit had two access points, a small hatch and a larger hatch. Once on the roof, Williams removed the lid from the smaller hatch to the cyclone unit and, using the pipe, unsuccessfully attempted to force the paper down the chute. Thereafter, Williams opened the larger hatch and, standing on a piece of angle iron next to the hatch, attempted to force paper downward into the chute with the pipe. His foot slipped off the angle iron, and he fell through the feed chute into the baler. When he reached the bottom of the chute, the baler automatically activated and crushed his legs.
Williams filed suit against Price, alleging willful, negligent, and/or wanton conduct in allowing safety devices to be removed from the baling machine and for willfully allowing the baler to be operated without such safety devices. The substance of Williams's complaint charges Price with willful conduct with the intent to injure, under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-11; in essence, that Price acted willfully in issuing instructions not to shut down the operation of the baler while Williams attempted to unclog paper from the cyclone unit.
Alabama Code 1975, § 25-5-11, as amended, limits actions for personal injuries that an employee who is receiving benefits under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act can recover against an "officer, director, agent, servant, or employee of the same employer" to actions for "willful conduct" that results in, or proximately causes, injury or death. Therefore, we must determine whether there is any evidence tending to show that Williams was injured as a result of Price's "willful conduct," as that term is defined in § 25-5-11(c)(1) and (2). If there is, then the summary judgment should not have been entered.
In Reed v. Brunson, 527 So.2d 102 (Ala.1988), this Court set out what constitutes "willful conduct":
The evidence in this case, when considered in a light most favorable to Williams, tends to show that Price had told Johnson not to turn off the baler while someone attempted to unclog paper from the cyclone unit, even after Price had been told by Johnson of the possible danger that could occur. Although this evidence tends to show that Price was negligent, and perhaps even wanton, in his conduct towards Williams, it fails to show that Price set out purposefully, intentionally, or by design to injure...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grimes v. Stewart
...1224 (Ala.1990); Pressley v. Wiltz, 565 So.2d 26 (Ala.1990); Landers v. O'Neal Steel, Inc., 564 So.2d 925 (Ala.1990); Williams v. Price, 564 So.2d 408 (Ala.1990); Bean v. Craig, 557 So.2d 1249 (Ala.1990); Burkett v. Loma Machine Manufacturing, Inc., 552 So.2d 134 (Ala.1989); Turnbow v. Kust......
-
Moore v. Reeves
...device or safety guard to protect the employee from injury). See, also, Bailey v. Hogg, 547 So.2d 498 (Ala.1989), and Williams v. Price, 564 So.2d 408 (Ala.1990). In this case, Moore, as the employee, sued the defendants, as his co-employees, for failing to maintain and/or repair the door a......
-
Cumbie v. L&A Contracting Co., Inc.
...to allow recovery against co-employees outside the limited context of safety devices manufactured for machines. See Williams v. Price, 564 So.2d 408 (Ala.1990) (failure to give instructions regarding safety procedures not equivalent to the removal of a safety device); Hallmark v. Duke, 624 ......
-
Lee v. Ledsinger
...can be reasonably inferred from evidence like that introduced in this case. See Reed v. Brunson, supra; see, also, Williams v. Price, 564 So.2d 408 (Ala.1990). It was not intended that a purpose, intent, or design to injure another be reasonably inferable from evidence showing only knowledg......