 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garibay v. State12/6/2005
Julie Garibay sued the State of Washington, Department of Labor and Industries, for wrongful death. She claimed the Department had negligently enforced safety regulations resulting in her husband's death. The court granted summary judgment dismissal because the Department was not a third party against whom such an action could be brought. We affirm.
Advanced Silicon Materials (ASM) operated a chemical production plant in Moses Lake, Washington. In 1996, there was a breakdown at the plant causing a shutdown. The Department of Labor and Industries (Department) conducted a safety audit and recommended that ASM take multiple corrective steps to improve the safety of its operation.
Demetrio Garibay worked for ASM. On October 8, 1998, a pipe burst and released chemical vapors that killed Mr. Garibay.
The Department conducted an accident investigation and concluded the pipe burst because it was worn. ASM had failed to comply with the chemical safety rules requiring a piping wall thickness inspection program. The Department issued a citation with substantial penalties.
Ms. Garibay sued the State for damages. The Department filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that when injury or death arises from an industrial injury setting, it is immune from liability under the Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51.04 RCW. The court granted the motion. Ms. Garibay sought review directly from the Supreme Court, but it transferred the case here.
We review an order of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wn.2d 530, 535, 105 P.3d 26 (2005). 'Summary judgment is proper {when} no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Id. (citing CR 56(c)).
The Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51.04 RCW, is based upon a compromise between workers and employers. Meyer v. Burger King Corp., 144 Wn.2d 160, 164, 26 P.3d 925 (2001). This compromise abolishes most civil actions arising from on-the-job injuries and replaces them with the exclusive remedy of industrial insurance benefits. Id. The exclusivity provision of the Act is broad and encompassing. Id. RCW 51.04.010 states: The common law system governing the remedy of workers against employers for injuries received in employment is inconsistent with modern industrial conditions. In practice it proves to be economically unwise and unfair. Its administration has produced the result that little of the cost of the employer has reached the worker and that little only at large expense to the public. The remedy of the worker has been uncertain, slow and inadequate. Injuries in such works, formerly occasional, have become frequent and inevitable. The welfare of the state depends upon its industries, and even more upon the welfare of its wage worker. The state of Washington, therefore, exercising herein its police and sovereign power, declares that all phases of the premises are withdrawn from private controversy, and sure and certain relief for workers, injured in their work, and their families and dependents is hereby provided regardless of questions of fault and to the exclusion of every other remedy, proceeding or compensation , except as otherwise provided in this title; and to that end all civil actions and civil causes of action for such personal injuries and all jurisdiction of the courts of the state over such causes are hereby abolished, except as in this title provided.
The Act thus abolishes all common law claims for relief that might arise due to an injury to an employee while acting in the scope of his employment unless a statute specifically bestows s
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|