 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Graves v. McConnell6/6/2000
icipated, or which he specifically directed others to do. A co-employee may be held liable when, through personal fault as opposed to vicarious fault, he breaches a duty owed to plaintiff. Personal liability, however, will not be imposed on a co-employee because of his general administrative responsibility for some function of his employment without more. He must have a personal duty towards the injured plaintiff, breach of which has caused plaintiff's damage. Wicken, 527 N.W.2d at 98 (quoting Dawley, 304 Minn. at 456, 231 N.W.2d at 557-58) (emphasis added).
The personal duty to co-employees contemplated in Dawley is no different than the duty any individual owes another arising from normal daily social contact — the duty to refrain from conduct that might reasonably be foreseen to cause injury to another. Wicken, 527 N.W.2d at 98.
Appellant argues that Thomas's "careless assertion as to the crew's whereabouts" was conduct Thomas could "reasonably foresee could cause injury ." We are urged to translate this into a personal duty owed on the part of Thomas. However, Thomas's actions were not acts of direct negligence toward Graves. As stated above, personal liability will not be imposed on a co-employee because of his general administrative responsibility for some function of his employment.
In the instant case, Thomas performed the functions of his employment with the information that he had, notwithstanding the tragic results. Thomas had no supervisory responsibility for Graves. Thomas was told by Graves that his crew would be working on a task that would take approximately two hours. Thomas never received any subsequent, contrary information. In fact, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Thomas received the radio call from someone in Graves's crew stating that the Metrodome steam could come back on-line.
We find that Thomas's actions on the day of this accident, however they fit into the unfortunate sequence of events ending in the deaths of two people, do not constitute a breach of personal duty to Graves. Thomas was acting within his administrative responsibilities as plant operator. This court cannot impose liability on a co-employee because of his general administrative responsibility for some function of his employment. To do so would be to undermine the fundamental purpose of the workers' compensation laws.
In light of our resolution of the personal duty issue, we do not reach the issue of gross negligence. The district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
|