 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tucker v. Molden3/3/2000
The plaintiff, James L. Tucker, Sr., as the administrator of the estate of his son, James L. Tucker, deceased, appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Regina S. Molden in this wrongful death action. No one disputes that the son Tucker was a dependentless employee killed in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and that Molden was his co-employee. Likewise, no one disputes that their employer was covered by the Workers' Compensation Chapter of the Code of Alabama 1975. § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for "negligently or wantonly, but not willfully," causing the plaintiff's son's death. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the exclusive remedy provisions of § 25-5-52 and § 25-5-53, Ala. Code 1975, immunize her from such claims. Specifically she argues that § 25-5-11(a) allows only an action based on willfulness and that § 25-5-52 and § 25-5-53 exclude all other damage action theories.
Section 25-5-52 reads in pertinent part:
"Except as provided in this chapter, no employee of any employer subject to this chapter, nor the personal representative ... shall have a right to any other method, for, or amount of compensation or damages for an injury or death occasioned by an accident ... proximately resulting from and while engaged in the actual performance of the duties of his or her employment." (Emphasis added).
Section 25-5-53 reads in pertinent part:
"The rights and remedies granted in this chapter to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee his or her personal representative, ... at common law, by statute, or otherwise on account of injury , loss of services, or death. ... In addition, immunity from civil liability for all causes of action except those based upon willful conduct shall also extend to ... an employee of the same employer...." (Emphasis added.)
The plaintiff invokes the last sentence of § 25-5-11(d), which reads:
"If the injured employee has no dependent, the personal representative, in the event of death, may bring a civil action against the other party to recover damages without regard to this chapter." (Emphasis added).
The plaintiff argues that the plain meaning of this sentence makes an exception to the general rule of co-employees' immunity and allows an action for damages "without regard to this chapter" against a co-employee on theories of negligence and wantonness causing death. The plaintiff argues that this exception is explained or required by the "paltriness" of the death and burial benefits granted by, respectively, § 25-5-60(1)(g) and § 25-5-67, Ala. Code 1975, to dependentless employees killed on the job . Section 25-5-60(1)(g) provides a death benefit of $7,500.00. Section 25-5-67 grants "the expenses of burial, not exceeding in amount $3000.00."
Does the last sentence of § 25-5-11(d) mean and do what the plaintiff argues? Would an interpretation contrary to the plaintiff's leave the sentence without purpose or function? What does the sentence mean and do, and what does it not mean and do? We will examine its elements and answer these questions. Again, the sentence under scrutiny reads:
"If the injured employee has no dependent, the personal representative, in the event of death, may bring a civil action against the other party to recover damages without regard to this chapter."
The clause "if the injured employee has no dependent" and the phrase "in the event of death" together specify a circumstance that leaves neither an injured employee nor any dependents to be supported or compensated for disa
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|