Bevis v. Linkous Constr. Co., Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00134-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00134-COA ; 2002-CT-00134-SCT ; 2002-CT-00134-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-13-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Duty of premises owner - Exclusivity rule - Intentional tort Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-01-2001 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: R. Kenneth Coleman Disposition: ORDER GRANTING WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS. ORDER GRANTING LINKOUS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Case Number: M93-482 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edith Bevis, Individually, and as Widow of Eddie Ray Bevis, Deceased, for and on Behalf of all Wrongful Death Beneficiaries |
TIMOTHY TAYLOR
BOBBY FLOYD MARTIN
|
||
| Appellee: | Linkous Construction Company, Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc. | LOUIS G. BAINE JAN F. GADOW TODD BRITTON MURRAH |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Duty of premises owner - Exclusivity rule - Intentional tort |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eddie Bevis, an ironworker employed by Fischer Steel Company, was killed in a construction accident. At the time, Fischer Steel was serving as a subcontractor to Linkous Construction Company, Inc., the primary contractor. The project was the construction of a distribution center for Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc., the owner of the real property. Bevis’s widow filed suit seeking damages for herself based largely on a loss of consortium claim and also asserted a wrongful death claim on behalf of those beneficiaries identified in Mississippi’s wrongful death statute. Her suit was brought against Linkous and Westinghouse and Allen & Hoshall, Inc. The court granted a motion by Linkous for summary judgment, and a motion by Westinghouse for dismissal. The court, in resolving the claims against these two entities, made the appropriate certifications under M.R.C.P. 54(b) to permit Bevis to file an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Duty of premises owner Bevis argues that the court erred in dismissing Westinghouse. A property owner who contracts for repairs or improvements to the property is not liable for injuries to workers on the premises arising out of the acts or omissions of the contractor. The premises owner has a duty to surrender to the contractor a reasonably safe working environment, which would include a duty to warn of hidden hazards or defects on the property that existed prior to the commencement of the work. The ensuing duty to warn or otherwise protect those individuals on the property as employees and agents of the contractor rests solely with the contractor. The hazardous condition complained of in this case did not arise out of a condition of the property created by the owner or existing on the property in a concealed state at the commencement of the project. Rather, it was a hazard created by the contractor, Linkous, in the course of completing its duties under the construction contract and for which Westinghouse had no duty, as to Bevis, to warn or otherwise protect against. Issue 2: Exclusivity defense Bevis urges reconsideration of the exclusivity defense and also argues that the facts of this case would support the contention that Bevis’s injuries were incurred as the result of an intentional tort on the part of Linkous, which is excepted from the exclusivity rule. The exclusivity rule provides that employees of subcontractors are deemed to be statutory employees of the general contractor for purposes of the workers' compensation laws and that, so long as coverage is provided either by the subcontractor or the contractor, recovery under workers' compensation is the injured worker’s sole remedy. Reconsideration of the exclusivity rule could only result from an election by the supreme court to grant certiorari as to this issue. With regard to an exception to the rule, the facts of this case would not give rise to tort liability on the part of Linkous under any recognized exception to the exclusivity rule. Only wilfully inflicted injuries are excepted from the exclusivity provisions of workers' compensation law because such injuries do not, at any point in the analysis, invoke the concept of an accidental injury. Linkous’s failure to properly repair the damaged bolts cannot be logically described as anything but gross negligence or reckless indifference. Such a determination would not permit Bevis to pursue this wrongful death claim against Linkous instead of seeking those death benefits afforded for a work-related accidental death under Mississippi’s workers' compensation laws. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
