Hurdle, et al. v. Holloway
| Docket Number: | 2001-IA-01681-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Exclusivity of Act Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment/Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-15-2001 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: Denied the Appellants' motion for summary judgment. Case Number: M97-229 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court found that the statutory provisions of the workers compensation act provided the exclusive remedy for the Appellee and reversed the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | J.K. Hurdle, Jr. and Sam Hurdle, Hurdle and Son, General Partnership, All Jointly and Severally |
LAWRENCE LEE LITTLE
DION JEFFERY SHANLEY |
||
| Appellee: | Michael Holloway | BARRETT JEROME CLISBY JAMES KIZER JONES |
|
|
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 - Exclusivity of Act |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Holloway, a Hurdle and Son employee, was seriously injured while riding home after work with Sam Hurdle. After filing a tort action in circuit court against J. K. Hurdle, Jr., Sam Hurdle, and Hurdle and Son, Holloway filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission, which granted the claim. The Hurdles and their WC carrier appealed to the circuit court which affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed. Holloway's tort action against the Hurdles was brought out of abeyance, and the Hurdles filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Holloway's complaint was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. The court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court granted the Hurdles permission to bring an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Act is the exclusive remedy for an employee injured while acting in the scope and course of his employment unless the injury is caused by the willful act of the employer or another employee acting in the course and scope of employment and in the furtherance of the employer's business and the injury must be one that is not compensable under the Act. The exclusivity provision of the Act bars Holloway’s tort claims against the Hurdles because the Court of Appeals decided as a matter of law that Holloway was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured, that his injuries were not the result of an intentional tort, and that his injuries were compensable under the Act. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
