Court Opinion

ID: 9531778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:14:28.086262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:34.797390
License: Public Domain

MEANS, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in affirming the sustention of the demurrer as to Tranter, as stated in the majority opinion. In Weber v. Armco, Inc., Okl., 663 P.2d 1221 (1983), the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically rejected the “dual-capacity” doctrine in Oklahoma.
Regarding the demurrer of the defendant Jerry Ryan, I also concur that the ruling on Ryan’s demurrer was improperly sustained, but for reasons different from those stated by the majority.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition alleged in pertinent part as follows:
II
On or about November 9, 1979, the Plaintiff was working at his job with Kentube, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff was operating a fin-tube machine when his clothing was caught upon certain unguarded, high speed, moving parts of the machine, and he was repeatedly and violently jerked, thrown, and slammed against parts of the fin-tube machine and the floor at a very high rate of speed before a co-worker could stop the machine. The Plaintiff sustained many and various bodily injuries as a result of this incident which will be set forth in detail hereinafter.
III
The aforementioned incident and the injuries sustained therein by the Plaintiff were proximately caused by the defective and negligent design, manufacture, fabrication, assembly and/or installation of the fin-tube machine, with its various component parts in that it required an operator to be exposed to the aforementioned, unguarded, high speed, moving parts. Emerson Electric, a corporation, was the manufacturer and seller of certain component control parts, the operation of which brought the Plaintiff into close proximity with the aforementioned unguarded, high speed, moving parts and exposed him to unreasonable risks of bodily injury.
IV
The fin-tube machine in question was designed by Ken Anderson, d/b/a Ken-tube, a number of years before the above described incident. Modifications and changes in the design of the fin-tube machine were subsequently made by Jerry Ryan. Several years prior to the above described incident, Ken Anderson and Jerry Ryan sold the entirety of their interests in the fin-tube business known as Kentube to Tranter, Inc. Jerry Ryan became an employee of Tranter, Inc., at that time and Ken Anderson subsequently died. Tranter, Inc., a corporation, is the successor in interest to Ken Anderson and Jerry Ryan, both d/b/a Kentube, by virtue of having acquired all their interests in and to the fintube business they started and developed including physical assets such as land, buildings, machines, materials, inventory and intellectual property such as fintube machine designs.
V
The high speed rotating action of the fin-tube machine repeatedly slamming *690the Plaintiff against the concrete floor caused the following injuries:
a. Compound fracture of the right femur;
b. Dislocation of the right index finger;
c. Depression fracture of left sinus;
d. Various soft tissue injuries, including but not limited to the right and left knees, the right Achilles tendon, facial cuts and abrasions, sprains and strains of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.
Defendants Ryan and Tranter demurred to the Second Amended Petition on the grounds and for the reasons that:
1. The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action in that the district courts are without jurisdiction in matters within the Workmen’s Compensation Act pursuant to OKLA.STAT. tit. 85, § 122.
2. The Second Amended Petition does not states [sic] facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that the Second Amended Petition on its face affirmatively shows .adjudication of the alleged claim properly under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, OKLA.STAT. tit. 85, §§ 12 and 122.
The critical issue in this case is the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant Ryan at the time of the alleged tortious acts. If they were co-employees, then 85 O.S.1981 § 12, prevails and the district court does not have jurisdiction over a Workers’ Compensation Act proceeding. Section 12 provides in part:
The liability prescribed ... shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer and any of his employees, at common law or otherwise, for such injury ... to the employee ....
In Keel v. Titan Construction Corp., Okl., 639 P.2d 1228, 1229-30 (1981), the supreme court said:
For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a petition to withstand a demurrer, a demurrer admits the truth of all facts well pleaded together with all inferences which may be legally drawn therefrom. On appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer, the petition must be liberally construed and all of its allegations of fact must be taken as true, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. (Footnotes omitted.)
A reading of the Second Amended Petition does not provide information as to when, the critical events took place. Did the modifications and changes in the fin-tube machine attributed to Ryan take place while he was an employee of Kentube, or later when he was an employee of Tranter? Was Ryan ever an employee of Kentube or was his status always that of co-owner? Not knowing what Ryan’s status was at the time the critical events took place precludes a determination that he and the plaintiff were or were not co-employees at the time any tortious acts occurred- and precludes sustaining a demurrer on that ground.
I would reserve resolution of the first impression substantive aspects raised by the parties until such time as these issues are raised, argued, and resolved by the trial court following complete- discovery.