Exclusive remedy negligence case remanded

The family of an Idaho woman killed when her hair got caught in a drive shaft at a seed plant may be able to sue for negligence if a lower court can determine whether facts support that the employer ignored risks, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled Friday, withdrawing a previous decision held in that same court.

Francisca Gomez was cleaning under a seed-sifting table during her shift at wholesale seed distributor Crookham Co. in Caldwell, Idaho, in January 2016 when she was killed. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration subsequently investigated Crookham and issued “serious” violations to the company because it exposed its employees to the unguarded drive shaft without implementing lockout-tagout procedures, according to documents in Gomez v. Crookham Co., filed in Boise.

OSHA had previously cited Crookham for violating machine guard safety standards and lockout-tagout protocol with its former picking tables, according to documents.

In 2016, the surviving Gomez family filed their complaint and demand for jury trial under nine causes of action: negligent design; failure to warn; strict liability-defective product; strict liability-failure to warn; breach of implied warranty of fitness and/or merchantability; breach of express warranty; strict liability-abnormally dangerous activity; negligence/negligence per se; and wrongful death.

Crookham moved for summary judgment, which was granted in 2017 by a district court on the ground that the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy rule of workers compensation law, and that product liability claims failed because Crookham was not a manufacturer of the picking table for product liability purposes, among other reasons.

On appeal, the state Supreme Court in late 2018 ruled unanimously that the trial court’s determination that exclusive remedy barred the lawsuit: “because the Gomezes were entitled to (and indeed did receive) worker’s compensation benefits for Mrs. Gomez’s death, the Industrial Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over their claim.”

The product liability claim also did not hold as Crookham is not the manufacturer of the picking table, according to the ruling, which also denied that court costs be paid by the company.

Friday’s decision withdrew that of 2018, upholding that the products liability determination claim stands but that the family may have ground to sue if facts support that Crookham “consciously disregarded knowledge of a serious risk to Mrs. Gomez,” documents state.

Three judges concurred with the decision and two judges dissented: “I agree with the Gomezes’ observations, but I do not agree with the Court’s decision to ‘flesh out’ under what circumstances a “consciously disregarded knowledge test” might be satisfied. Simply put, there is no consciously disregarded knowledge test under Idaho Code,” wrote one judge.

A fifth justice wrote that “I would replace the ‘consciously disregarded knowledge’ test we announced (in previous cases) with a different test. I suggest the adoption of the “substantial certainty” test,” which was put in place in Ohio and orders that a plaintiff proves “knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation,” among other factors.