Opinion ID: 201784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dual Persona Doctrine

Text: 30 The Bragas claim that they should be able to sue Genlyte as successor to the original Lightolier despite the otherwise applicable workers' compensation immunity. They rely on what is commonly referred to as the dual persona doctrine. According to that concept an employer may become a third person, vulnerable to tort suit by an employee, if — and only if — it possesses a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to its status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes that persona as a separate legal person. 6 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 113.01[1], at 113-2 (2005) ( Larson ); see also Gurry, 550 N.E.2d at 131 (citing this definition from an earlier edition of the Larson treatise). Where such a dual persona exists, the dual persona doctrine may permit a tort suit only if the  nonemployer persona owed the injured employee duties totally separate from and unrelated to duties arising out of the employment relationship. Larson, § 113.01[4], at 113-10 (emphasis in original). 31 Gurry is the leading Massachusetts case on the dual persona doctrine. The facts in Gurry, as here, are somewhat involved. Gurry worked for United Cranberry Growers Associates, Inc. (Cranberry), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Delaware Food Store, Inc. (DFS). Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc. (Dairy), another DFS subsidiary, sold managerial services to Cranberry. As part of these duties, Dairy designed, and commissioned a contractor to build, buggies for Cranberry. The next year, Cranberry and Dairy merged into DFS, which in turn merged into Cumberland Farms, Inc. (Cumberland). Gurry continued at his job, with Cumberland becoming his employer as a result of the mergers. Gurry was killed while working for Cumberland, operating one of the buggies. Gurry's beneficiaries received workers' compensation payments. The Gurry plaintiffs nonetheless sued Cumberland, alleging that negligent design, manufacture and maintenance of the buggy by its predecessors, Cranberry and Dairy, caused Gurry's death. 32 The question thus presented was one of first impression in Massachusetts: could an employee injured on the job sue an employer for negligence on the part of the employer's corporate predecessors? The Supreme Judicial Court found that the answer depends on the interrelationship of two statutes: the business corporation law and the workers' compensation act. Gurry, 550 N.E.2d at 130 (citations omitted). The Gurry court observed that, under Massachusetts business corporation law, Cumberland stood in the shoes of Cranberry [] and Dairy ..., inheriting any liabilities for tortious conduct, as well as any privileges in the form of statutory immunities, that those predecessors would have had. Id. at 131 (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156B § 80(a)). 33 The court held that Cumberland could not be sued for Cranberry's alleged negligence because Cranberry itself would have been immune from suit since all the acts and omissions alleged against [it] arose out of the direct employment relationship between it and Gurry. Id. On the other hand, Dairy was never Kevin Gurry's employer, and would have been susceptible to a third-party claim as a tortfeasor outside of the protection of workers' compensation if not for the merger. Id. (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152 § 15 (1988 ed.)). Had the merger not occurred, plaintiffs would have been able to bring a third party suit against Dairy, the company that designed and supervised the manufacture of defective equipment for the decedent's then-employer, Cranberry. The Gurry court emphasized that the workers' compensation statute was intended to deal with injuries and liability occurring in the course of the employer-employee relationship. Id. Since a claim based on Dairy's conduct did not arise from an employment relationship, but from the negligence of an independent corporation, allowing it to go forward would not interfere with the purpose of the workers' compensation statute. The court concluded that insulat[ing] Cumberland from liability it acquired, as a result of its merger with Dairy[,] because [Cumberland] happened to be Kevin Gurry's employer, would subvert the important aims of both the workers' compensation system and the business corporation statute. Id.