Court Opinion

ID: 9711239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:27:19.923516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.100571
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s statement that the test as to whether co-employees are “in the same employ” is solely whether the defendant employee could obtain compensation benefits. See Thiellen v. Graves (1988) 2d Dist.Ind.App., 530 N.E.2d 765.
More importantly, however, I disagree that Louis’ consortium claim is barred solely because Barbara was acting in the course of her employment. The summary judgment in favor of Barbara is not correct unless the court correctly applied the law to the facts. In my view the legal inquiry is not ended with a determination of Barbara’s “in the course of employment” status. See Rosander v. Copco Steel & Engineering Co. (1982) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 990.
Rosander has been criticized for stating that a consortium claim is a derivative, rather than an independent claim. Mead, Torts, 1982 Survey of Recent Developments in Indiana Law, 16 Ind.L.Rev. 377, 398 (1983). Nevertheless, the holding of the Third District is that the consortium claim was not barred by the recovery of workers compensation from the claimant’s employer, nor by a release executed by the injúred employee in favor of the employer of the individual who caused the injury.
In short, if the consortium claim is in law a claim independent of the claim made by the injured employee it is not barred by the fact that a co-employee was in the course and scope of his employment when he caused the injury.
I fully concur with the treatment under Part II.