Lamar v. Thomas Fowler Trucking, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CT-00280-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00280-COA ; 2004-CT-00280-SCT ; 2004-CA-00280-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-24-2007 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Wrongful death action - Section 71-3-7 - Section 71-3-9 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): LAMAR, J. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, P.J. Dissent Joined By : GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-19-2003 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: CV 2000-51BP1 |
|
| Note: | The Court of Appeals focused on the contractor/subcontractor relationship between Golden Timber and Lamar Trucking, analyzing "up-the-line" and "down-the-line" immunity concepts, the supreme court found that analysis to be unnecessary, as the issue of whether Fowler Trucking is immune from suit turns on statutory language, that is, whether Fowler complied with section 71-3-7 by securing the payment to its employees. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JULIANNA LAMAR |
JOHN GRIFFIN JONES
GILSON DAVIS PETERSON
T. STEWART LEE, JR.
CRAIG ROBERT SESSUMS |
||
| Appellee: | THOMAS FOWLER TRUCKING, INC. | MATTHEW ANDERSON TAYLOR PAUL T. LEE, JR. |
|
|
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: | Workers’ compensation - Wrongful death action - Section 71-3-7 - Section 71-3-9 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ira Bobo was killed while working for Fowler Trucking, which was transporting logs for Golden Timber, Inc. Bobo’s youngest daughter, Tracie, was considered a dependent as defined by section 71-3-25, and was voluntarily paid death benefits by Golden Timber’s workers’ compensation carrier. Bobo’s oldest daughter, Julianna Lamar, was not a dependent as defined by the Act, and was paid nothing. Lamar filed a wrongful death suit against Fowler Trucking, Golden Timber and two of Golden Timber’s employees. Golden Timber and its employees were dismissed by agreed order, because Golden Timber was Bobo’s statutory employer and, therefore, was afforded immunity under the Act. Fowler Trucking moved for summary judgment which the court granted. The Court of Appeals found that Fowler Trucking had failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage and was not protected “down-the-line” by Golden Timber’s policy. However, the Court of Appeals held that because Lamar’s younger sister elected to accept the death benefits under the Act, Lamar’s sole remedy was under the Act and not through an independent tort action. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | An employee is statutorily prevented from pursuing a common law wrongful death action in one of two ways. First, if the employer provides workers’ compensation coverage to its employees by securing payment of compensation, in compliance with section 71-3-7, then its employees are precluded from suing in tort pursuant to section 71-3-9, which provides that workers’ compensation payments are the exclusive remedy when the employer secures payment of compensation. Second, even if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation, in certain circumstances, an employee may elect to proceed under the provisions of the Act in lieu of maintaining an action at law for damages. Once an election of remedies is made, then the party electing to proceed under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act is precluded from suing in tort. Fowler Trucking complied with section 71-3-7 by securing payment of compensation. Fowler Trucking argues that when workers’ compensation coverage is provided either by the subcontractor or the contractor, recovery under workers’ compensation is the injured worker’s sole remedy. This concept, occasionally labeled “down-the-line” immunity, is applicable where it can be justified by statutory language. If Fowler Trucking secured payment as provided in section 71-3-7-(d), i.e., it took proper steps to provide for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits, then it is immune from suit in tort pursuant to section 71-3-9. Sufficient evidence exists in the record to show that Fowler Trucking complied with the Act by securing coverage for Bobo, its employee. Because Fowler Trucking did so, whether Bobo’s beneficiaries are precluded from suing in tort because they elected to receive compensation benefits need not be addressed. Since Fowler Trucking complied with the plain language of the Act by securing compensation for its employees, the court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Fowler Trucking. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
