Title: HERRON v PACK COMPANY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 85-45 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 LINDA HERRON, individually and as heir to the Estate of ROBERT W. HERROM, Plaintiff and Appellant, PACK AND COMPANY, a Montana corporation, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, The Honorable Michael Keedy, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Murray, Kaufman, Vidal & Gordon; Daniel W. Hileman argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Stephen C. Berg argued, Kalispell, Montana - - - -- - - Submitted: June 18, 1985 Decided: August 29, 1985 Filed: AUG 2 9 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Linda Herron a p p e a l s from a summary judgment ~ n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l District Flathead County. The District Court refused t o recognize t h e d u a l c a p a c i t y d o c t r i n e which would have allowed Herron t o maintain an a c t i o n i n negligence a g a i n s t Pack and Company, Inc. W e a f f i r m . Robert Herron was employed by Pack and Company, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Company. O n J u l y 21, 1984, Robert Herron was k i l l e d i n a s i n g l e v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t w h i l e r i d i n g back from work on U.S. Highway no. 2 , n e a r Essex, Montana. It i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t was proximately caused by n e g l i g e n t , improper and i n s u f f i c i e n t maintenance upon t h e t r u c k ' s braking system performed by employees o f t h e Company. The Company provided Workers' Compensation coverage through t h e S t a t e Fund and Herron's h e i r s received b e n e f i t s . O n November 15, 1984, Linda Herron f i l e d a wrongful death and s u r v i v a l a c t i o n i n District Court. The Company f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s a l l e g i n g t h a t § 39-71-411, MCA, t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy p r o v i s i o n , barred t h e a c t i o n a s a m a t t e r o f law. The District Court granted t h e Company's motion t o d i s m i s s , r u l i n g t h a t t h e dual c a p a c i t y d o c t r i n e was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Montana law. The following i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on appeal: (1) Whether an employee can sue h i s employer f o r negligence where it i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e employer o p e r a t e s i n a dual c a p a c i t y and has an e x t r a employer r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t i s s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t from t h a t o f employer/employee. (2) Whether n e g l i g e n t and i n s u f f i c i e n t maintenance o f a v e h i c l e ' s braking system c o n s t i t u t e s an i n t e n t i o n a l t o r t f o r purposes o f t h e Workers' Compensation A c t . The exclusive remedy limitation embodied in S 39-71-411, MCA is both clear and unambiguous. Section 39-71-411, MCA provides: For all employments covered under the Workers' Compensation Act or for which an election has been made for coverage under this chapter, the provisions of this chapter are exclusive. Except as provided in part 5 of this chapter for uninsured employers and except as otherwise provided in the Workers' Compensation Act, employer is not subject to any liability whatever for the death of or personal injury to an employee over indemnity asserted by a third person from whom damages are sought on account of such injuries or death. The Workers' Compensation Act binds the employee himself, and in case of death binds his personal representative and all persons having any right or claim to compensation for his injury or death, as well as the employer and the servants and employees of such employer and those conducting his business during liquidation, bankruptcy, or insolvency. This appeal presents a question concerning the dual capacity exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. In an attempt to circumvent the exclusive remedy limitation, Herron invokes the dual capacity doctrine. This doctrine, however, has been subject to misapplication and abuse by plaintiffs. See Mercer v. Uniroyal, Inc. (Ohio 1977), 361 N.E.2d 492; Profilet v. Fallonite (Ill. 1977), 371 N.E.2d 1069; Rosales v. Verson Allsteel Press Co. (Ill. 1976), 354 N.E.2d 553; Neal v. Roura Iron Works (Mich. 1975), 238 N . F T . 2 d 837. The emergence of the dual persona doctrine is an attempt to correct the looseness and overextension of the dual capacity doctrine. "In a sense, a single legal person may be said to have many 'capacities,' since that term has no fixed legal meaning." Stretching this doctrine to cover the numerous possible relationships or theories of liability can destroy employer immunity and "go a long way toward destroying the exclusive remedy principle." 2A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law - S 72.81 (1982). Herron argues it was not the intent of the Montana Legislature in adopting the Workers' Compensation Act to insulate a grossly negligent employer who assigned extra duties to its employees simply by strict adherence to the exclusivity rule. By operating its own separate service department, appellant maintains that the Company had generated a different set of obligations to its employees and had acted in a dual capacity with respect to its employees. Montana has no line of cases construing $ 39-71-411, MCA, relative to the dual capacity concept. Herron submits a United States Supreme Court decision, Reed v . Steamship Yaka (1963), 373 U . S . 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448, which has facts almost identical to the facts of the present case. In Reed, the plaintiff was a longshoreman who was injured while loading a vessel that had been leased under a bare-boat charter by the defendant employer. In addition to being entitled to compensation benefits, the employee also was permitted to bring an action against the employer, as charterer, alleging unseaworthiness of the vessel. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant/employer owed a "traditional, absolute and non-delegable" duty to the employee that could not be circumvented by the exclusive remedy provision of the longshoremens' act. 373 U.S. at 415. The Reed holding has been followed in subsequent United States Supreme Court cases, as well as several appellate court decisions. See Jackson v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Co. (1967), 386 U.S. 731, 87 S.Ct. 1419, 18 L.Ed.2d 488; Griffith v . Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (3rd. Cir. 1975), 521 F.2d 31, cert. den'd., (1976) 423 U.S. 1054, 96 S.Ct. 785, 46 L.Ed.2d 643; Longmeir v . S e a d r i l l i n g Corporation ( 5 t h C i r . 1980), 610 F.2d 1342. The C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t s have been t h e f o r e r u n n e r s i n a minority o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s adopting t h e d u a l c a p a c i t y d o c t r i n e . I n a r e c e n t C a l i f o r n i a c a s e , h e a v i l y r e l i e d upon by Herron, a d r i v e r was i n j u r e d i n a f i r e t h a t developed while he was t r a n s f e r r i n g propane from h i s t r u c k t o holding-tanks. The p l a i n t i f f employee was permitted t o b r i n g a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e employer under t h e d u a l c a p a c i t y t h e o r y a l l e g i n g t h a t he had been i n j u r e d a s a proximate r e s u l t o f d e f e c t s i n t h e t a n k t r u c k and o t h e r equipment t h a t had been modified by t h e employer. B e l l v. I n d u s t r i a l Vangus, Inc. (Cal. 19811, 637 P.2d 266. The Company maintains t h a t B e l l has no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e p r e s e n t matter. The B e l l d e c i s i o n concerns an employee i n j u r e d a s a r e s u l t o f d e f e c t i v e equipment manufactured by t h e employer. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e Company argues, respondent d i d n o t manufacture t h e v e h i c l e nor t h e d e f e c t i v e braking equipment which f a t a l l y i n j u r e d M r . Herron. The Company urges t h i s Court t o adopt t h e r u l i n g o f an I l l i n o i s Supreme Court d e c i s i o n , Romo v. A l l i n Express S e r v i c e , Inc. (Ill. 1982), 436 N.E.2d 20. In Romo, t h e e s t a t e o f an employee brought a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n a g a i n s t employer, a l l e g i n g negligence i n t h e maintenance o f a t r u c k . The I l l i n o i s Supreme Court dismissed t h e a c t i o n , holding t h a t t h e a c t i o n based on d u a l c a p a c i t y was b a r r e d by t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy p r o v i s i o n o f t h e I l l i n o i s Workers' Compensation A c t . The c o u r t found s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e employer furnished t h e t r u c k t o t h e employee. Because t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e t r u c k was an i n c i d e n t o f h i s employment, t h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e d u a l c a p a c i t y argument. W e agree. Herron a l s o argues t h a t t h e Company's f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y maintain t h e v e h i c l e ' s braking system c o n s t i t u t e s an i n t e n t i o n a l t o r t . However, i n a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n , we d e c l i n e d t o recognize a s i m i l a r t o r t a c t i o n by a lumber m i l l employee a g a i n s t h i s employer f o r f a i l i n g t o maintain a s a f e workplace. Noonan v. Spring Creek F o r e s t Products, Inc. (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , 700 P.2d 623, 4 2 St.Rep. 759. Although t h e hazardous and dangerous n a t u r e o f t h e workplace was recognized, t h i s Court s t a t e d , " t o t r a n s l a t e t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n t o an i n f e r e n c e of t o r t i o u s i n t e n t on behalf o f t h e employer would r e q u i r e a standard o f law t h i s Court has t h u s f a r r e f u s e d t o adopt . . . " I n accord w i t h Noonan, w e hold Herron's a c t i o n i n t o r t i s foreclosed. The summary judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. We concur: /i'