 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan v. Afton11/30/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County Honorable Jere Ryckman, Judge
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Second. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
Golden, Justice.
A company and its employee were hired to collect a urine specimen in the first phase of a substance abuse testing program implemented by Solvay Minerals (Solvay) for its employees. In this case of first impression for Wyoming, we must decide whether the collecting company and its employee owe a duty of reasonable care to Solvay=s employee who is required to submit a urine specimen. The district court ruled that, until it had direction from this Court, it would not hold that Wyoming law recognized such a duty; consequently, the district court dismissed the complaint containing negligence claims against Afton, Ameritest, and its employee. That action was filed by Harvey J. Duncan who was terminated by his employer, Solvay, when it received a report that Mr. Duncan=s urine specimen, collected by Afton and its employee and analyzed by another company, Northwest Toxicology, showed a .32 urine alcohol content.
We hold that a collection company owes a duty of care to an employee when collecting, handling, and processing urine specimens for the purpose of performing substance abuse testing. We reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
ISSUES
Duncan presents the following issues for our review:
A. Did the district court err in dismissing the complaint and failing to recognize that plaintiff had also pled a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.
B. Did the district court err in failing to recognize a duty of care from a collection company, who at the request of an employer, collects urine specimens of employees for the purpose of performing drug and alcohol testing, to the donor/employee.
Afton rephrases the issues as:
A. Did the District Court properly dismiss Plaintiff=s complaint finding that no legal duty exists between Plaintiff and Defendants?
B. Did the District Court err in not separately addressing Plaintiff=s alleged claim of negligent misrepresentation?
The Amicus Curiae brief of Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association accepted the issues presented by Duncan and did not present others.
FACTS
Duncan was an employee of Solvay Minerals in Sweetwater County. Solvay contracted with Afton to collect urine specimens of Solvay=s employees from time to time for drug and alcohol testing. Solvay separately contracted with a laboratory, Northwest Toxicology, Inc. of Salt Lake City, Utah, to analyze the specimens and report the results to Solvay.
On December 15, 1997, Solvay ordered Duncan to submit a urine specimen for drug and alcohol testing. Duncan was randomly selected for the test in accordance with Solvay=s substance abuse policy. Defendant Leigh Ann Shears, an employee of Afton, supervised the collection of a urine specimen from Duncan at Solvay=s place of business.
Our standard for reviewing dismissed actions requires that we accept as true all of the facts alleged in the complaint. Feltner v. Casey Family Program, 902 P.2d 206, 207 (Wyo. 1995). Duncan alleges that upon providing a urine specimen to Shears in an unsealed container, Shears directed him to return to the restroom to wash his hands. While Duncan was in the restroom, the specime
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|