Missouri Court Finds No Immunity For Claims Against Co-Employee

Missouri workers who are injured because of the negligent act of a co-worker will have an easier time bringing civil negligence claims against their co-workers because of a recent ruling by the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals.

In the case of Robinson v. Hooker, WD 71207, handed down on August 3, 2010, the court reversed an order to dismiss a negligence claim that had been filed by the injured employee after he settled his workers compensation claim.  The worker had sued his co-worker, alleging his negligence led to the employee's eye injury, which caused him to become blind in his right eye.  The co-employee had defended the negligence suit based on workers compensation immunity and res judicata, because the issues had been resolved in the underlying workers compensation matter.  The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, remanding the matter back to the trial court.

The Appeals Court noted that under Missouri law prior to the 2005 amendments to the Workers Compensation act, a co-employee could only be liable for injuries sustained on the job if the injured employee could show "something more," beyond mere negligence, some affirmative act taken by or increased risk caused by the co-employee.  See Badami  v. Gaertner, 630 S.W. 2d 175,(Mo.App 1982) 

The Court concluded that under the 2005 amendments requiring courts to apply strict construction, the Badami case needed to be revisited.  The court held that the statute granting employers immunity from any civil liability arising from work injuries, Section 287.120, does not apply to co-employees, as they are not "employers' as defined by the statute. There is mo immunity unless the co-employee fits squarely within the definition of employer. The Court noted that this interpretation was being "mindful" to "effectuate legislative intent" as reflected in the "plain and ordinary language of the statute" and pursue a long-standing principle to preserve common law rights.

The Court further held that res judicata did not apply to the negligence action because there was a lack of identity of parties and claims.  The negligence action included claims for pain and suffering and other damages that are not at issue in a workers compensation claim.

This decision is interesting in light of the fact that the 2005 amendments to the Workers Compensation Act were supposed to narrow the scope of the Act, making it more favorable to employers. Instead, courts have used strict interpretation to narrow employer defenses.  Robinson opens another large gap in the protections the Workers Compensation act was supposed to provide employers.  It will be interesting to see if this case is appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, or if the legislature tries to fix the law in its next session.

If you or someone you love has suffered a serious injury in a work related accident in Kansas or Missouri, you may be entitled to compensation.  Contact the experienced Kansas City Personal Injury Attorneys of Roswold Law Group.  With over 15 years of experience in Work Related Accidents and Workmans Comepsation cases, we can help.  Call today for a free consultation.