CASE LAW OVERVIEW:
STRINGER V. MINNESOTA VIKINGS -
DETERMINING PERSONAL LIABILITY OF
CO-EMPLOYEES.
Co-employees of an injured or killed worker are generally exempt from personal liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”). The WCA is based on the premise that both the employer and the employee mutually renounce “common law rights and defenses” in order to be governed under the Act. In some cases, however, a co-employee is not protected from liability under the WCA, particularly when “the injury resulted from the gross negligence of the co-employee or was intentionally inflicted by the coemployee.” The recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, et al. addresses how the workplace actions of a co-employee can lead to the loss of co-employee immunity provisions under the WCA and can leave the co-employee open to personal liability.
Korey Stringer was a professional football player with the Minnesota Vikings. On July 30, 2001, the first day of Viking’s training camp, Stringer complained of stomach pains and began to vomit during practice. Head trainer Charles Barta escorted Stringer off the field into an air conditioned trailer and called for the assistance of the training camp physician Dr. William Knowles. Dr. Knowles determined that Stringer had suffered from an episode of heat exhaustion, but that he had recovered after rest and hydration. The next day was extremely hot and humid. Stringer, along with other players, was weighed both before and after practice to determine if there had been significant weight changes as a result of loss of body fluid. Stringer’s weight that morning was compared to his weight from the prior afternoon and Barta noted no extraordinary changes and allowed Stringer to fully participate in practice. By mid-morning, Stringer was again vomiting. Assistant trainer Paul Osterman attempted to assist Stringer, but Stringer refused help and continued to practice. Shortly thereafter, Stringer laid down on the field and Osterman and another trainer again came to assist Stringer, this time removing him from the field and into the air conditioned trailer.
Stringer was treated with water and iced towels and it was noted that he was sweating and his skin was moist. Stringer was also humming and moving about the trailer, lying alternately on the floor and sitting on the examination table. When another trainer came to transport Stringer to the team dormitory, Stringer became unresponsive and the medical services coordinator, Fred Zamberletti, was summoned. While Osterman was waiting for Zamberletti, he found that Stringer’s pulse was steady but weak. When Zamberletti arrived, Stringer was hyperventilating and he placed a plastic bag over Stringer’s mouth and nose. Stringer was taken to the hospital where, for the first time that day, his body temperature was taken and found to be 108.8 degrees. Korey Stringer died the following morning from complications from heat stroke.
The Stringer family sued the Vikings, Barta, Osterman and Zamberletti. The family alleged that Barta, Osterman, and Zamberletti’s actions created a personal duty towards Stringer and were grossly negligent, thus removing the coemployee immunity provisions of WCA as codified in Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 5(c). The three defendants, Barta, Osterman and Zamberletti, were granted summary judgment on two grounds, first that they owed Stringer no duty and second, even if they owed Stringer a duty, that their conduct was not grossly negligent. Stringer’s family appealed the ruling to the Minnesota Court of Appeals which upheld the district court’s ruling. The Minnesota Court of Appeals first addressed the issue of duty. The Court noted the employer has a nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees. Co-employee’s actions, when made pursuant to the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace, will not create a personal duty on the co-employee. When a coemployee, however, undertakes direct acts towards another worker, which are not pursuant to the employer’s nondelegable duty, the co-employee may have a personal duty to the worker.
The Court reasoned that Osterman and Zamberletti both had a personal duty towards Stringer based on their direct actions of caring and treating Stringer. The Court determined that such actions did not involve "general workplace safety or the removal of workplace hazards" and, therefore, "their actions were not pursuant to their employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace." The Court declined to extend the same reasoning towards Barta. The Court found that Barta’s only direct act towards Stinger, evaluating his weight, was performed to determine whether individual players could practice. This action was directly related to the employer’s duty to maintain safe working conditions and thus could not create a personal duty on Barta. The Court further explained its analysis by noting that personal duty may be coextensive with employment duties and that not every action taken by an employee can be considered in furtherance of the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace.
Absent a finding of personal duty, Barta was protected from personal liability under the WCA. For Osterman and Zamberletti, however, the finding that they did owe Stringer a personal duty engaged the next question –whether their actions were grossly negligent. The Court noted that few cases have considered the issue, and that all the cases that have, have found no gross negligence on the part of the co-employee. The Court outlined the basic definition of gross negligence, noting that it was recently narrowed by a vehicular homicide case in 1999, to mean an action "without even scant care but not with such reckless disregard of probable consequences as is equivalent to a willful and intentional wrong." This definition was adopted into the Minnesota Civil Jury Instructions, which states "Gross negligence occurs when a person does not pay the slightest attention to the consequences, or uses no care at all." The Court examined the actions of Osterman and Zamberletti and noted that both attempted to care for Stringer. Osterman walked Stringer to the first-aid trailer, observed Stringer, gave him water, removed his shoes and applied iced towels and Zamberletti attempted to treat Stringer for hyperventilation and arranged for Stringer to be transported to the hospital. The Court found these actions demonstrated that Osterman and Zamberletti were aware of the danger to Stringer and took steps to care for him. These actions, the Court noted, "may reflect poor judgment or lack of reasonable care, but there is no basis to conclude that [Osterman and Zamberletti] disregarded the risk to Stringer altogether in a manner ‘equivalent to a willful and intentional wrong.’" As a result, the Court determined that Osterman and Zamberletti’s actions were not grossly negligent and thus fell within the protections of the WCA. The Court consequently upheld the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Barta, Osterman and Zamberletti.
The Stringer case is important to the defense of a co-employee from a personal lawsuit by an injured or deceased co-worker. Generally speaking, these cases are high dollar cases where the coworker or his or her family believes that the Workers’ Compensation system fails to provide adequate compensation for their loss. Defenses in these claims should focus on a dismissal of the coemployee on the grounds of no personal duty (as was found with Barta) or that the co-employees conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence (as was found with Osterman and Zamberletti). If the plaintiff cannot provide evidence to support both a personal duty and gross negligence, the coemployee cannot be found personally liable under Minn. Stat. §176.061, subd. 5(c), and the co-employee should be dismissed from any personal injury litigation.
About the Author: Kit is an associate who focuses her practice in the areas of employment law, commercial litigation, and automobile. Prior to becoming an Associate in late 2002, Kit worked as a law clerk at the firm for a year. Before joining Arthur, Chapman, Kit law clerked at the Hennepin County Attorney Office.