Widow can proceed with duty of care claims

The widow of a truck driver killed by a forklift may pursue her duty of care cases against the farm where the incident occurred and the company that owned the forklift, a Georgia appellate court held Monday.

In Mullinax v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., the Georgia Court of Appeals in Atlanta unanimously reversed a trial court’s decision to dismiss claims against three companies in the death of a worker but held that the court properly dismissed claims against the driver’s employer.

In September 2015, truck driver James Mullinax, who worked for Mt. Crawford, Virginia-based Mountain Milk Hauling Inc., was at a farm owned by Garren Benton Hall to transport chickens for processing by Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. A forklift operator employed by Rising Inc., which was contracted by Pilgrim’s to catch chickens and load them onto the trucks, started a forklift and left it running while he went to use the bathroom. Mr. Mullinax’s co-worker at Mountain Milk got into the running forklift and began removing crates from the chicken house and loading them onto a truck when he accidentally ran over Mr. Mullinax, killing him. The co-worker was not authorized to use the forklift and had been previously disciplined for operating a forklift without authorization.

Mr. Mullinax’s widow filed a workers compensation claim with the Mountain Milk and filed complaints against Pilgrim’s Pride, Mr. Hall and Rising, alleging that the companies had breached their duties to her husband. A trial court granted summary judgment to all three entities.

She appealed, and the Georgia appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the case against Pilgrim’s but reversed the decision with respect to Mr. Hall and Rising, holding that a jury could conclude that Rising was negligent for leaving a forklift running and that issues of fact remain as to whether Mr. Hall breached his duty of care to Mr. Mullinax as the owner of the premises where the accident occurred.

The appellate court determined that Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. was Mr. Mullinax’s statutory employer because it was the principal contractor, and that his widow’s claims against the company were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers Compensation Act.

However, the court held that a jury could conclude that Rising, through its forklift operator, failed to exercise ordinary care by leaving the forklift running and unattended, and that the co-worker who ran over Mr. Mullinax had a history of driving forklifts without authority and had been yelled at by Rising’s owner a year earlier for operating the company’s machinery without permission or training.

The appellate court also found fact issues as to whether Mr. Hall exercised ordinary care to keep his farm safe. Mr. Hall testified that forklifts entered and exited chicken houses quickly and acknowledged that there was no designated forklift path or pedestrian walkway. Although Mr. Hall said that he surrendered his farm to Pilgrim during catch operations, the court said that while it found evidence that he did not control the catch operation or crews, it does not show that he relinquished possession of the premises.