 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kopet v. General Mills5/3/2005
Appellant challenges the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the actions against respondent fit into the assault exception to jurisdiction under the Workers' Compensation Act, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Craig Kopet worked for appellant General Mills at its grain elevators, loading and unloading grain from trucks and rail cars. While working at the Delmar elevator, Kopet encountered fellow employee Austin Church. Church made statements to Kopet about his body, offensive sexual references, and comments about what Church would like to do to Kopet sexually and what Church would like Kopet to do to him. Church also made sexually inappropriate comments about Kopet's wife and children. In addition, Church unzipped his pants and simulated masturbation. On a number of occasions, Church rubbed Kopet's leg, pressed his groin against Kopet's buttocks, and pushed a metal pole against Kopet's buttocks as Kopet climbed down a ladder. Kopet complained to his supervisors several times, asking that they stop Church from touching him and making sexual remarks, but the supervisors ignored his complaints. Kopet did not claim he received a physical injury or apply for or receive any workers' compensation benefits related to the incidents. Kopet left General Mills' employment in January 2002.
In November 2003, Kopet and his wife commenced suit against General Mills claiming several common-law causes of action including assault and battery, negligent retention, negligent supervision, and loss of consortium. In April 2004, the Kopets moved to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages; the district court granted the motion. General Mills moved to dismiss on the basis that the workers' compensation system has exclusive jurisdiction over all tort claims and displaces common-law claims. The district court treated the motion as a motion for summary judgment and denied General Mill's motion. This appeal follows.
DECISION
On appeal from summary judgment, this court must examine two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and (2) whether the district court erred in its interpretation of the law. Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418, 420 (Minn. 1997). A genuine issue of material fact must be established by substantial evidence, which is evidence legally sufficient to withstand a directed verdict at trial. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 70 (Minn. 1997). The district court must not weigh the evidence or decide issues of fact, but only determine whether genuine factual issues exist. Id. The nonmoving party must present enough evidence to create not just a metaphysical doubt about a fact, but enough so that reasonable persons could draw different conclusions. Id. at 71. The reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). A district court's decision on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Sentinel Mgmt. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 615 N.W. 2d 819, 827 (Minn. 2000).
Minnesota's workers' compensation laws were designed to provide medical and lost wage benefits for employees injured as a result of job-related activities. Minn. Stat. ยง 176.001 (2004); Wicken v. Morris, 527 N.W.2d 95, 98 (Minn. 1995). The enactment of the workers' compensation laws involved a series of compromises by which both employees and employers gained and gave up benefits as compared to the common law. Kaluza v. Home Ins. Co., 403 N.W.2d 230, 235-36 (Minn. 1987). As a result of the workers' compensation laws, "the employer assumes liability for work-r
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|