Sykes v. Williams

373 Ark. 236 (2008) (Ark. 2008) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · April 17, 2008 · No. No. 07-918

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed summary judgment against David Sykes in his tort action arising from an injury sustained while working as a truck driver. The court held that an employee suing under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-105(b) after an employer's failure to secure workers' compensation coverage must prove negligence, although certain common-law defenses are unavailable. The court also held that failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance did not establish proximate cause of the physical injury and that the claim concerning Baxter's status as a prime contractor was moot.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Annabelle Clinton Imber
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
April 17, 2008
Docket number
No. 07-918
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Craighead County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in an employee's tort action arising from an uninsured employer's alleged failure to secure workers' compensation coverage.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed to determine whether the evidentiary materials leave a material question of fact unanswered; the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Statutory-construction issues are reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion
Parties
David Sykes v. Jack Williams, First Coast Intermodal Services, Inc., Baxter Healthcare Corporation
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

workers compensationnegligencestatutory interpretationstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

workers compensationnegligenceemployment lawstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an injured employee suing under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-105(b) must prove negligence or may recover under a theory of strict liability.
  2. Whether an employer's failure to secure workers' compensation insurance, standing alone, establishes negligence or proximate cause of the employee's injury.
  3. Whether Baxter's alleged status as a prime contractor under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-402(a) afforded Sykes relief in his tort action.

Holdings

  1. An employee who elects the alternative tort remedy under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-105(b) must prove the defendant's negligence; the action is not one of strict liability.
  2. Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage may constitute negligent conduct, but it does not establish liability without proof that the failure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.
  3. The prime-contractor issue was moot because section 11-9-402(a) governs workers' compensation claims and would not provide relief in Sykes's elected tort action.

Key quotations

Therefore, to maintain a suit in tort contemplated by Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-105(b), a plaintiff must prove negligence on the part of the defendant. (214)
Section 105(b) penalizes employers without subjecting them to strict liability. (216)
It simply cannot be said here that Appellees' failure to maintain insurance coverage produced Sykes's back injury. (217)

Factual background

David Sykes was employed as a truck driver by Jack Williams, who acted as a freight lessor for First Coast Intermodal Services, a carrier for Baxter Healthcare Corporation. While delivering and exchanging trailers at Baxter's facility in Mississippi, Sykes injured his back while disconnecting a trailer. Williams lacked workers' compensation insurance and was not an authorized self-insured employer, so Sykes elected to pursue a tort action alleging negligence by Williams, First Coast, and Baxter.

Procedural history

Sykes was injured while disconnecting a trailer and filed a claim with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. After learning that his employer was uninsured and unauthorized to self-insure, he pursued a tort action against his employer, the carrier, and the healthcare-company customer. The Craighead County Circuit Court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…