 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sexton v. Duncan8/19/2005
On December 11, 1999, a motor vehicle accident occurred on Highway 96 in Rutherford County, Tennessee. A vehicle operated by Lester W. Martin crossed the centerline of the highway and struck an on-coming vehicle. Charles B. Sexton was a passenger in the vehicle being driven by Mr. Martin. Both men died as a result of the accident.
Both Mr. Sexton and Mr. Martin were employed by LoJac Enterprises, Inc. The vehicle was owned by LoJac and was assigned to Mr. Sexton for use in traveling to and from various job sites and for work related errands at the job sites. LoJac anticipated that the vehicle would be operated by other LoJac employees under the supervision of Mr. Sexton for company business. Mr. Sexton was the foreman of a crew that laid the aggregate rock which served as a base for highway pavement and also laid shoulder stone after paving was completed. On the date of the accident, Mr. Sexton and Mr. Martin were returning from a job site near Santa Fe in Maury County, Tennessee, some 56 miles from Murfreesboro, where they both lived. At the time of the accident, Mr. Martin was operating the vehicle.
Mr. Sexton had been Mr. Martin's supervisor for several years prior to the accident and routinely transported Martin to job sites where they were working. When Sexton missed work due to a vacation or for some other reason, the truck was often left with Mr. Martin for his use in going to and from work. On occasion, Mr. Sexton would also provide transportation for other LoJac employees. This practice benefitted LoJac by assuring the employees would be at work on time and benefitted the employee by saving them transportation expenses.
Following the death of her husband, Mrs. Sexton received the workers' compensation benefits provided for the dependents of a deceased worker whose death arose out of and during the course of his or her employment. She subsequently filed a tort action against the estate of Lester Martin. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed in behalf of the estate finding that Mrs. Sexton's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-108. Mrs. Sexton has appealed from the trial court's action.
Upon appeal from a summary judgment order, the standard of review is controlled by Rule 56, Tenn. R. Civ. P. Where, as in this case, the facts are not in dispute, the question on appeal is one of law, and our scope of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness accompanying the trial court's conclusions. Union Carbide Corp. v Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993); Smith v. Norris, 218 Tenn. 329, 403 S.W.2d 307 (1966).
Our workers' compensation laws have an exclusive remedy provision that is found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-108(a) and provides:
(a) The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to the Workers' Compensation Law on account of personal injury or death by accident, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, such employee's personal representative, dependents or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-112(a) provides, however, that when the injury or death is caused "under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the employer" the injured worker has the right to workers' compensation benefits and may also pursue their remedy against the other person. Our courts have interpreted this statute to exclude a co-employee acting within the course of his or her employment as being "some person other than the employer" even though th
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|