Case Title: Bruley v. Fonda Group

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-437


Jeffrey D. Bruley and                        Supreme Court
Lillian Bruley Luman
                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Franklin Superior Court

Fonda Group, Inc.                            May Term, 1990



Alan W. Cheever, J.

Mary G. Kirkpatrick and Michael Marks of Lisman & Lisman, Burlington, for
  plaintiffs-appellants

Anthony B. Lamb of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington for defendant-
  appellee


PRESENT:  Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   The sole issue before us involves the applicability of the
exclusivity provision of Vermont's Workers' Compensation Law where a minor
employee is injured on the job doing an activity prohibited by federal law.
The trial court ruled the exclusivity provision, 21 V.S.A. { 622, applied.
We agree and affirm.
     Plaintiffs brought a personal injury suit against Fonda Group to
recover damages resulting from an accident when Jeffrey Bruley lost control
of a 20-horsepower riding mower and collided with a parked tractor trailer
truck on the defendant's premises in St. Albans, Vermont.  The complaint
alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to warn and permitting
Jeffrey to operate the lawn tractor, and strictly liable for violating the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act by permitting Jeffrey, then fourteen years
old, to use a power-driven machine.  Jeffrey's mother pled loss of her
son's consortium.
     The trial court granted summary judgment in defendant's favor on the
ground that the exclusivity provision of Vermont Workers' Compensation Law
applied to this work-related accident and dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed.
     Although there is some dispute in the record whether Jeffrey's
employment included operating the lawn tractor, we assume for purposes of
this appeal that it did.  Other tasks assigned to Jeffrey involved general
yard work, including painting, raking, and picking up debris.  At the time
of the accident, an older employee told Jeffrey to move the lawn tractor out
of the way of vehicular traffic and, while moving it, he lost control and
was injured.
     Under federal law, minors between fourteen and sixteen years of age may
not be employed in "[o]ccupations which involve the operation . . . of any
power-driven machinery . . . ."  29 C.F.R. { 570.33(b) (1990); see 29 U.S.C.
{ 212(c) (1988); 29 C.F.R. { 570.2 (1990).  Relying on Wlock v. Fort Dummer
Mills, 98 Vt. 449, 459-60, 129 A. 311, 314-15 (1925), plaintiffs urge us to
hold that Jeffrey's employment, being illegal under federal law, should not
be governed by workers' compensation and that he be permitted to pursue a
common-law action against his employer for damages.
     Wlock holds that, despite the Workers' Compensation Law, a minor
employee, whose employment was illegal under Vermont's Child Labor Law, 21
V.S.A. {{ 431-453 (formerly G.L. {{ 5832-5845), may maintain a separate
damage action against an employer.  There, Cecelia Wlock was employed in
violation of the provision prohibiting employment of certain minors without
an employment certificate from the Commissioner of Industries.  Cecelia was
at an age requiring such a certificate and had none.
     The Wlock doctrine was raised in Wisell v. Jorgensen, 136 Vt. 604,
604-05,