Bertagnolli v. Louderback

67 P.3d 627 (Wyo. 2003) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · April 21, 2003 · No. No. 02-65

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for co-employee supervisors in an action arising from a mine worker's severe injury while working near an energized shuttle belt. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the supervisors' knowledge of the general risks associated with the shuttle belt and whether their conduct constituted intentional acts or willful and wanton misconduct under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-104(a).

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
Kite, Justice; Hill, C.J.; Golden, J.; Lehman, J.; Kite, J.; Voigt, J.
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
April 21, 2003
Docket number
No. 02-65
Procedural posture
Bertagnolli appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his co-employee supervisors in an action seeking damages for work-related injuries under Wyoming's co-employee liability statute.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. The appellate court examines the same materials and applies the same standards as the district court, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment and giving that party all favorable inferences. Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Joe Bertagnolli v. Max Louderback, Larry Westbrook
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

workers compensationsummary judgmentemployment lawnegligencestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

workers compensationemployment lawtortscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the co-employee supervisors under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-104(a).
  2. Whether evidence that the supervisors knew of the general dangers of working near an energized shuttle belt, had responsibility for employee safety, and nevertheless required Bertagnolli to work there without a lockout created genuine issues of material fact concerning intentional conduct and willful and wanton misconduct.

Holdings

  1. The statutory phrase permitting a claim when co-employees 'intentionally act to cause physical harm or injury' has essentially the same legal effect as willful and wanton misconduct. Willful and wanton misconduct includes intentionally doing or failing to do an act in reckless disregard of consequences under circumstances that a reasonable person would know, or have reason to know, create a high probability of harm.
  2. Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the supervisors knew of the general risks of working near the energized shuttle belt and whether their refusal to lock out the equipment and direction that Bertagnolli perform the work constituted intentional conduct and willful and wanton misconduct.

Key quotations

We continue to believe the concept of willful and wanton misconduct has essentially the same legal effect as the statutory language "intentionally act to cause physical harm or injury." (633)
Mr. Bertagnolli is entitled to have a jury determine whether that evidence, together with the evidence presented with regard to their intentional acts, demonstrates the supervisors "intentionally act(ed) to cause physical harm or injury" and their actions constituted willful and wanton misconduct. (635)
We conclude the district court viewed the issues too narrowly and failed to address the evidence which created questions of fact concerning the supervisors' knowledge of the general risks posed by the shuttle belt. (635)

Factual background

Joe Bertagnolli was instructed to shovel ore debris in the west end of a shuttle-belt area of a trona mine, where the cable and sheave wheels were exposed and workers had little protection from the equipment's moving parts. He asked his supervisors, Larry Westbrook and Max Louderback, to lock out the shuttle belt before he worked near it, but the request was allegedly refused and Louderback allegedly threatened him with termination if he refused the assignment. While Bertagnolli worked near the energized belt, the equipment moved, his foot became caught between a cable and an unguarded sheave wheel, and the back of his foot was severed; his leg was later amputated below the knee.

Procedural history

Bertagnolli sued Max Louderback and Larry Westbrook, alleging that they willfully and wantonly required him to work near an energized shuttle belt and refused his request to lock out the equipment. The district court granted the supervisors' motion for summary judgment, concluding that they lacked knowledge that the specific sheave wheel involved in the accident was unguarded. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that evidence concerning the broader dangers of working near the shuttle belt created genuine issues of material fact.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including fact-finder resolution of the supervisors' knowledge of the general risks posed by the shuttle belt and whether their conduct was intentional and willful and wanton.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…