Title: McKennan v. Wyoming Sawmills, Inc.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

McKennan v. Wyoming Sawmills, Inc.1991 WY 119816 P.2d 1303Case Number: 91-24Decided: 09/16/1991Supreme Court of Wyoming
SUSAN W. McKENNAN, 
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TERRY DON McKENNAN, DECEASED, APPELLANT 
(PLAINTIFF),

v.

WYOMING SAWMILLS, INC., A 
WYOMING CORPORATION, APPELLEE (DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofSheridanCounty, James N. Wolfe, 
J.

James P. Castberg, 
Sheridan, for appellant.

Kim D. Cannon and Anthony 
T. Wendtland of Burgess, Davis, Carmichael and Cannon, Sheridan, for 
appellee.

Before URBIGKIT, C.J., 
THOMAS, CARDINE and GOLDEN, JJ., and BROWN, Ret. J.

BROWN, Justice, 
Retired.

[¶1.]     Appellant Susan 
McKennan, personal representative of the estate of Terry Don McKennan 
(McKennan), brought suit alleging that Terry McKennan's employment with appellee 
Wyoming Sawmills, Inc., was unlawful in that he was required to work under 
circumstances that violated the Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Act 
(OHSA), W.S. 27-11-101 et seq. (June 1987 Repl.)1 and that, because his employment 
was unlawful, the exclusive remedy provided by the Wyoming Worker's Compensation 
Act, W.S. 27-14-101 et seq. (1987 Repl. and 1990 Supp.) was not applicable to 
their claims. In addition, McKennan asserted that Wyoming's wrongful death 
statute creates a class of claimants who are not precluded from seeking damages 
for wrongful death by the worker's compensation laws. The district court 
dismissed the complaint, finding that it was barred by Wyo.Const. art. 10, § 4, 
and W.S. 27-14-104.2 

[¶2.]     We affirm.

[¶3.]     Terry McKennan died 
tragically on September 22, 1989, at the Wyoming Sawmills plant in Sheridan, Wyoming. There were no witnesses to the 
industrial accident, but circumstances suggested that Terry fell or was drawn 
into an auger that moved wood chips as he was trying to unclog it. He suffered 
massive body trauma and died almost instantly. In her complaint, McKennan 
alleged that Terry's employment was unlawful because Wyoming Sawmills was in 
violation of several OHSA rules and regulations. The complaint contained this 
recitation of work place violations:

     (a) Failed to maintain and supervise an 
adequate safety program in order to provide Terry Don McKennan with adequate 
instruction in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the 
regulations applicable to his work environment in order to control or eliminate 
any occupational hazards or his exposure to illness or injury.

     (b) Failed to install, 
maintain and require the use of "lockout devices" such as padlocks in order to 
lock out the source of power at the main disconnect switch on the equipment 
which caused the death of Terry Don McKennan, which "lockout devices" are 
necessary to disconnect the power source or flow of material so that it is 
locked out or blocked off before any maintenance, inspection, cleaning, 
adjusting or service of equipment requiring entrance into or close contact with 
the machinery or equipment can be performed.

     (c) Failed to provide 
guarding for exposed moving elements of the equipment which caused the death of 
Terry Don McKennan which guarding should be in place at all times while the 
machine is in operation.

     (d) Failed to provide 
adequate and effective lighting designed to supply adequate general and local 
lighting to the work area and to avoid shadows and extreme contrasts during the 
time of use by the employee.

     (e) Failed to place 
signs warning of hazards existing in the work place in the immediate area of the 
exposed moving elements of the equipment which caused the death of Terry Don 
McKennan.

     (f) Failed to 
adequately train and properly supervise Terry Don McKennan as to the use and 
operation of the equipment being operated by Terry Don McKennan at the time of 
his death.

[¶4.]     Wyoming Sawmills was 
initially charged with three violations of the Wyoming Occupational Health and 
Safety Rules and Regulations for Wood Harvesting & Processing: failure to 
instruct employee (Chap. III, Sec. 2.b.); failure to provide guarding for 
exposed moving elements (Chap. IV, Sec. 12.d.(11)); and failure to use lockout 
devices (Chap. IV, Sec. 12.d.(13). Pursuant to a settlement process, the first 
and third violations were vacated and Wyoming Sawmills paid a penalty of $420 on 
the second violation.

[¶5.]     The district court 
granted Wyoming Sawmills' motion to dismiss, and we agree that no other 
resolution of this case is possible under the current worker's compensation 
statutes. In Mauch v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 641 P.2d 1247, 1251 (Wyo. 1982), we held that 
the existence of OHSA violations does not render otherwise lawful employment 
unlawful. That is exactly the circumstance here, and we adhere to that holding. 
The case law precedents are unanimous in support of our decision in Mauch. 
Barrino v. Radiator Specialty Company, 315 N.C. 500, 340 S.E.2d 295, 304 (1986); 
M. Rothstein, Occupational Safety and Health Law, (West's Handbook Series), 
Chapter 21, §§ 501-502 (3rd Ed. 1990); S. Bokat and H. Thompson, Occupational 
Safety and Health Law, Chapter 25 (1988); Annotation, OSHA Violation by Employer 
or Third Party as Providing Cause of Action for Employee, 35 A.L.R.Fed 461 
(1977). In Mauch, we also iterated our holding that the employer immunity 
provided by the worker's compensation statutes exists without regard to 
negligence, whether culpable or ordinary. Mauch, 641 P.2d  at 1250. In addition, 
we made clear that the immunity provision excludes actions against a deceased's 
employer by the surviving relatives or administrator of the deceased. Id.

[¶6.]     In the context of this 
case, we also note that the employer immunity provided by the worker's 
compensation scheme extends even to conduct that might otherwise be considered 
culpable:

     Even if the alleged 
conduct goes beyond aggravated negligence, and includes such elements as 
knowingly permitting a hazardous work condition to exist, knowingly ordering 
claimant to perform an extremely dangerous job, wilfully failing to furnish a 
safe place to work, or even wilfully and unlawfully violating a safety statute, 
this still falls short of the kind of actual intention to injure that robs the 
injury of accidental character.

2A A. Larson, The Law of 
Workmen's Compensation, § 68.13 at 13-36 to 13-44 (1987). And see Wessel v. 
Mapco, Inc., 752 P.2d 1363 (Wyo. 1988).

[¶7.]     In summary, we hold 
that Terry McKennan's employment was not unlawful and the district court 
properly dismissed McKennan's complaint. This decision may appear harsh, but the 
remedy to more complete redress of a grievance such as this lies with the 
Wyoming State Legislature and not with this court.

[¶8.]     The order of the 
district court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 These statutes were 
amended in 1990, but those in effect at the time of injury are those found in 
the 1987 Replacement.

2 W.S. 27-14-104 
reads:

Exclusive remedy as to 
employer; nonliability of coemployees; no relief from liability; rights as to 
delinquent or noncontributing employer.

     (a) The rights and 
remedies provided in this act for an employee including any joint employee, and 
his dependents for injuries incurred in extrahazardous employments are in lieu 
of all other rights and remedies against any employer and any joint employer 
making contributions required by this act, or their employees acting within the 
scope of their employment, but do not supersede any rights and remedies 
available to an employee and his dependents against any other 
person.

     (b) No contract, rule, 
regulation or device shall operate to relieve an employer from any liability 
created by this act except as otherwise provided by this act.

     (c) This act does not 
limit or affect any right or action by any employee and his dependents against 
an employer for injuries received while employed by the employer when the 
employer at the time of the injuries has not qualified under this act for the 
coverage of his eligible employees, or having qualified, is delinquent in 
payment of premium on an injured employee's earnings. When an employee's 
employment starts within the same month as the injury, the status of delinquency 
or not contributing shall not apply until after the regular payroll reporting 
date.