Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Coworkers' method of travel is critical to employment status, immunity analysis

Under Arkansas law, coworkers are not automatically entitled to workers' compensation immunity when they injure a colleague. They are protected from suit only if they were providing a required employment service.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Honeysuckle v. Curtis H. Stout, Inc., et al., No. CA08-1073 (Ark. Ct. App. 10/21/09).

Ruling: The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that a coworker was the employer of the deceased employee and was entitled to workers' compensation immunity.

What it means: Under Arkansas law, coworkers are not automatically entitled to workers' compensation immunity when they injure a colleague. They are protected from suit only if they were providing a required employment service.

Summary: Two employees were involved in a plane crash in one employee's private plane while traveling back from a business meeting. The wife of the deceased employee filed a wrongful-death action against the pilot. The Court of Appeals rejected the pilot's arguments that he was immune from suit as the "employer" because he had undertaken the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace.

The court reasoned that the employer did not direct or control the means of travel, and more specifically, did not control or direct the pilot in maintaining and operating the plane with reasonable care. Although the employees' travel to the meeting was obligatory and advanced the employer's interests, the specific means of getting there was not. The court reversed the commission's finding and held that the pilot was not the employer. Therefore, he was not immune from the wrongful-death suit.

The court explained that an employee shares the employer's immunity when he acts as the "alter ego" of the employer in discharging the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace. This immunity protects supervisors, for example, when their duties include overseeing a safe workplace.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.

January 7, 2010

Copyright 2010© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.