Case Title: EX PARTE McCARTNEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Citation: 720 So. 2d 910

Docket Number: 1970686

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1998-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
720 So. 2d 910 (1998)
Ex parte McCARTNEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
(Re Maurice Dwight TIMMONS v. McCARTNEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.)
1970686.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 7, 1998.
Jack W. Torbert of Torbert & Torbert, P.A., Gadsden, for petitioner.
Daniel B. King of King, King & King, P.C., Gadsden, for respondent.
COOK, Justice.
McCartney Construction Company ("McCartney"), a defendant in an action pending in the Etowah Circuit Court, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing that court to vacate its order denying McCartney's motion to dismiss, and to dismiss McCartney as a defendant. We grant the petition.
Maurice Dwight Timmons, the plaintiff in the pending action, is an employee of McCartney. He suffered an on-the-job injury. The documents filed with this Court indicate that Timmons is covered by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-1 et seq. Timmons sued McCartney and a co-employee for damages based on his injury, alleging that they had intentionally and willfully failed to provide him with a safe workplace, in violation of § 25-1-1.
McCartney moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was entitled to immunity pursuant to §§ 25-5-52 and 25-5-53 (the "exclusive remedy" provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that, because Timmons alleged intentional and willful misconduct on the part of the defendants, McCartney was not entitled to immunity.
The immunity provided employers by the Workers' Compensation Act is found at § 25-5-52 and at § 25-5-53:
Section 25-5-11 authorizes the injured employee to bring an action against "any party other than the employer" who is also legally responsible for the injury, and provides:
In Murdock v. Steel Processing Services, Inc., 581 So. 2d 846, 848 (Ala.1991), this Court held:
And, in Padgett v. Neptune Water Meter Co., 585 So. 2d 900, 901 (Ala.1991), we held:
See, also, Powell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 646 So. 2d 637 (Ala.1994).
McCartney is entitled to the relief it seeks; therefore, the petition for the writ of mandamus is granted.
PETITION GRANTED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, KENNEDY, SEE, and LYONS, JJ., concur.