In Missouri, Jurisdiction Over Wrongful Death Claim

State ex rel. Tri-County Electric Cooperative Association v. The Honorable Gary Dial Schuyler County

Subject matter jurisdiction over wrongful death claim

Tri-County Electric Cooperative journeyman lineman Steven Watson was electrocuted while assisting fellow employee Bobby Newland in making repairs to one of Tri-County's electrical power lines. Watson's parents, Gary and Martha Watson, sued Newland and Tri-County for their son's wrongful death. Newton and Tri-County moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the trial court overruled their motion. Tri-County seeks a writ from this Court prohibiting the circuit court from doing anything other than vacating its order overruling Tri-County's motion to dismiss.

Tri-County argues that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Watsons' claims against Tri-County and that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss. Tri-County contends that Missouri's workers' compensation law vests exclusive jurisdiction over the Watsons' claims with the labor and industrial relations commission because Watson's fatal injuries arose out of and occurred in the scope and course of Tri-County's business. Tri-County asserts that a writ of prohibition is appropriate here because Watson's widow and minor child have received, and will continue to receive, workers' compensation benefits for his death. Tri-County argues that allowing Watson's parents to continue their lawsuit would obliterate the tort immunity for Missouri employers provided for by Missouri's workers' compensation law.

The Watsons respond that Tri-County is not entitled to a writ of prohibition because it has failed to prove that the trial court abused its discretion and because it failed to meet its burden of proof on its motion to dismiss. They argue the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it gave Tri-County a full and fair opportunity to present its motion and carefully considered the motion in reaching its decision. The Watsons contend that the trial court properly overruled the motion to dismiss because, if they prove all the allegations in their petition, the case might fall within an exception to exclusivity provision of the workers' compensation act. They assert that Tri-County is not entitled to a writ of prohibition because it failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that this case falls within the workers' compensation law's vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in the labor and industrial relations commission. Specifically, the Watsons respond that Tri-County failed to show that the affirmative negligent actions of it and Newland, as its supervisor and agent, breached Tri-County's duties beyond the non-delegable duties Tri-County owed to their son. They argue that only breaches of common law duties to provide a safe work environment fall within the exclusivity provision. They contend that Newland's breaches of a personal duty and Tri-County's responsibility for Newland's breach of that duty are not breaches of Tri-County's common law duties owed to Watson and, therefore, do not fall within the workers' compensation law exclusivity provision.