Summary Judgment For An Employer Was Reversed As To A Negligent Aggravation Claim As An Employer Could Be Liable Even If It Was Not Aware That Its Conduct Was Causing Or Contributing To The Employee's Injury. Moreover, The Employer Knew That Its Conduct W
Benny W. Dickey v. Midstream Fuel Services, Inc.
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA
2007 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 160
March 9, 2007, Released
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: An employee sued an employer seeking, pursuant to the Jones Act and general maritime law, to recover for the injuries to his lungs caused by his exposure to noxious fumes while working for the employer. The Mobile Circuit Court (Alabama) entered summary judgment for the employer. The employee's Ala. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion was denied. The employee appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the appellate court.
OVERVIEW: The employer argued that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court held that the employee conceded that he could not recover for injuries he had sustained more than three years before he filed his suit. The employer's claim that even if the employee had a claim of negligent aggravation, the employer did not know that its conduct caused or contributed to his injury was rejected as an employer could be liable even if it was not aware that its conduct was contributing to the employee's injury. Moreover, the employer knew that its conduct was causing or contributing to the employee's condition. The employer's claim that even if the employee had a claim for negligent assignment, the employee had not personally told the employer that he suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) was rejected. The employer was aware of the employee's COPD before it assigned him to a ship, ordered him to paint the engine room, and reassigned him to another ship. Finally, the courts had rejected the modified continuing tort doctrine as a basis for recovery under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The summary judgment as to those claims was affirmed.
OUTCOME: The summary judgment was reversed as to the negligent aggravation and negligent assignment claims. In all other respects, the summary judgment was affirmed. The matter was remanded to the trial court.
