 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson v. Mehlhaff6/8/2005
R>
ISSUE ONE
[ .] Whether worker 's compensation was Thompson's exclusive remedy.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ .] For the purpose of the summary judgment motion, both sides agreed that the material facts were not in dispute. Therefore, the exclusive remedy issue was strictly a question of law. Construction of worker 's compensation statutes and their application to the facts is a question of law. Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc., 2000 SD 158, , 620 NW2d 198, 200. "Questions of law are reviewed de novo without deference to the trial court." Olson-Roti v. Kilcoin, 2002 SD 131, , 653 NW2d 254, 258; City of Colton v. Schwebach, 1997 SD 4, , 557 NW2d 769, 771 (citing Jasper v. Smith, 540 NW2d 399, 401 (SD 1995)).
DISCUSSION
[ .] Spencer Quarries was the general contractor on the Greenwood project and Mehlhaff was a subcontractor. Thompson was a truck driver for Spencer Quarries. When Thompson was killed on the job , his wife, as the personal representative of his estate, received worker 's compensation benefits for the death of her husband from Spencer Quarries. When Thompson's estate sued Mehlhaff for negligence, Mehlhaff moved for summary judgment and argued that the estate's claim should be dismissed because the worker 's compensation benefits that were received from Spencer Quarries were Thompson's exclusive remedy. The trial court denied the motion.
[ .] This case presents a question of first impression in South Dakota. Mehlhaff urges this Court to adopt the minority rule that worker 's compensation is the sole remedy of an employee of a general contractor who is injured by the negligence of an employee of a subcontractor. However, for the reasons stated below, we decline to do so and instead adopt the majority rule that an employee of a general contractor may collect worker 's compensation from the general contractor and also sue a negligent subcontractor or a subcontractor for the negligence of an employee of the subcontractor.
[ .] The purpose of the South Dakota Worker 's Compensation Act is to provide an injured employee with an expeditious remedy independent of fault and to limit the liability of employers and fellow employees. Harn v. Continental Lumber Co., 506 NW2d 91, 95 (SD 1993). There is an inherent trade-off in the worker 's compensation scheme. The employee is guaranteed compensation if injured on the job but the employer's liability is limited in exchange for this certainty. The quid pro quo is liability for immunity. Therefore, " orker's compensation is the exclusive remedy for all on-the-job injuries to workers except those injuries intentionally inflicted by the employer." Id. at 95.
[ .] SDCL 62-3-2 provides that an employee's rights under the worker 's compensation law for death or injury arising out of employment are exclusive as to both the employer and fellow employees. That statute provides:
The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to this title, on account of personal injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment, shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents, or next of kin, on account of such injury or death against his employer or any employee, partner, officer, or director of such employer, except rights and remedies arising from intentional tort.
SDCL 62-3-2 (emphasis added). Therefore, the employee cannot sue the employer or fellow employees except for intentional torts. Id. However, an injured employee can sue a third party for negligence subject to the employer's right to subrogation for the worker's compensation paid to the employee. SDCL 62-4-38. That statute prov
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|