Fogerty v. Armstrong

541 S.W.3d 544 (Mo. banc 2018) · Supreme Court of Missouri · March 6, 2018

Summary

The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for a co-employee in a personal injury action arising from a workplace accident involving a front loader. The court held that the co-employee's alleged negligence in selecting and carrying out an unsafe method of moving stones was encompassed by the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace, rather than a separate and distinct duty supporting co-employee liability. A concurrence agreed with the result but disagreed with the court's foreseeability analysis.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the Court
Paul C. Wilson; Fischer, C.J.; Russell, J.; Breckenridge, J.; Stith, J.; Draper, J.; Powell, J.
Jurisdiction
Missouri
Decision date
March 6, 2018
Procedural posture
Fogerty appealed from a circuit court order granting co-employee Larry Meyer's motion for summary judgment in a personal-injury negligence action.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Matthew Fogerty v. Larry Meyer
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

negligencetortsworkers compensationstandard of care

Practice areas

TortsWorkers' compensationEmployment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Fogerty could maintain a negligence action against co-employee Meyer by showing that Meyer breached a duty separate and distinct from Wright Construction Company's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace.
  2. Whether Meyer's negligent selection and execution of the method for moving the stones constituted a breach of an independent co-employee duty or instead constituted negligence in performing the employer's nondelegable duty.

Holdings

  1. A co-employee's negligence is not actionable when it concerns a duty that is part of the employer's nondelegable duty to protect employees from reasonably foreseeable workplace risks, including the duty to provide a safe method and means of work.
  2. Summary judgment for Meyer was proper because his negligence in deciding how to install the fountain and move the stones breached only the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace, not a separate and distinct duty owed by Meyer.

Key quotations

"To maintain a negligence action against a co-employee, a plaintiff must show that the co-employee breached a duty separate and distinct from the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workspace for all employees." (547)
"[T]he only thing that matters for purposes of applying Parr and Peters [ ] is whether the duty the co-employee breached was part of the employer's duty to protect employees from reasonably foreseeable risks in the workplace." (548)
"If so, the claim is barred. If not, the suit against the co-employee can proceed." (548)

Factual background

Fogerty and Meyer, employees of Wright Construction Company, were assigned to construct a fountain despite having no experience installing fountains and receiving only blueprints, without detailed safety instructions. Meyer used a front loader in an unfamiliar manner to move large stones and directed Fogerty to walk beneath the loader forks to steady a suspended stone. The forks unexpectedly dropped and struck Fogerty, causing back and knee injuries. The employer had not provided a safe method or means for performing the fountain-construction work.

Procedural history

Fogerty sustained workplace injuries while constructing a fountain with Meyer and later settled a workers' compensation claim. He then filed a personal-injury action against Meyer and also sued supervisor Rick Armstrong; the claim against Armstrong was dismissed without prejudice. The circuit court granted Meyer summary judgment, concluding that Fogerty had not shown a breach of a duty separate and distinct from the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…