Opinion ID: 2822801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Flowers Was the Employer

Text: The plaintiffs did not state a claim in the wrongful death case against Flowers apart from his capacity as an agent of the employer. A corporation can act only through its agents, Naylor Senior Citizens Housing, LP v. Sides Constr. Co., 423 S.W.3d 238, 244 (Mo. banc 2014), and an employer cannot delegate the duty to provide a safe work environment. Kelley v. DeKalb Energy Co., 865 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 1993). Suits against employees personally for breach of the duty to maintain a safe working environment are preempted by the workers' compensation remedy. State ex rel. Taylor v. Wallace, 73 S.W.3d 620, 621 (Mo. banc 2002), overruled on other grounds by McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 298 S.W.3d 473, 478-79 (Mo. banc 2009). An employee may sue a fellow employee only for 'affirmative negligent acts outside the scope of an employer's responsibility to provide a safe workplace.' Id. at 621-22; Kelley, 865 S.W.2d at 672. The wrongful death petition, which named Flowers as a defendant, alleged that his actions breached a personal duty owed to Ms. Nunley and amounted to something more than Missouri Hardwood's duty to provide a safe workplace for employees. However, the only negligence alleged was ordering employees to place the kiln doors upright despite knowing it was unsafe. The wrongful death judgment ultimately held this Court's review. The Court will not consider it. See Rule 84.04(e); Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686-87 (Mo. banc 1978). The Court also need not address the plaintiffs' claim that the exclusivity principle of the Workers' Compensation Law does not apply when the employer has fewer than five employees because they concede in their substitute brief that they recovered $5,000 in workers' compensation benefits from Missouri Hardwood. See § 287.030.1(3) (stating that employers generally must have five or more employees to be deemed employers for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law). 9 Flowers liable for negligently maintaining this company policy. 5 This was a claim of failure to provide a safe workplace, which is exclusively the employer's duty. See Wallace, 73 S.W.3d at 621-22; Kelley, 865 S.W.2d at 672. Regardless of whether Flowers was also an employee of the company, the plaintiffs' claim could only have been asserted against him in his capacity as agent for Ms. Nunley's employer. See Wallace, 73 S.W.3d at 621-22; Kelley, 865 S.W.2d at 672; Naylor, 423 S.W.3d at 244. The policies did not cover Flowers' liability for Ms. Nunley's death while she was on the job because he was acting as her employer. 6