Bartholomay v. Plains Grain & Agronomy, LLC
2016 ND 138
| N.D. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 18, 2013, Jon Bartholomay, an employee of Plains Grain & Agronomy, fell from the top of a railcar while loading grain at Plains’s Sheldon elevator and later died from his injuries.
- Plains managed the Sheldon facility without a fall-protection system; it had planned but delayed installation for other projects despite loading hundreds of railcars annually.
- Safety warnings and industry guidance regarding railcar loading and fall protection had been provided to Plains; OSHA later issued citations (including willful classifications) for lack of fall protection after the accident.
- Penny Bartholomay sued for wrongful death, alleging Plains intentionally exposed Jon to unsafe conditions and arguing her claim fits the statutory exception to employer immunity.
- Plains moved for summary judgment, invoking the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workforce Safety and Insurance Act; the district court granted summary judgment, holding the evidence did not show an intentional act done with the conscious purpose of inflicting injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer immunity is overcome because the employer committed an "intentional act done with the conscious purpose of inflicting the injury" | Bartholomay: Plains knowingly withheld fall protection despite warnings, creating a condition certain to cause injury, so the statutory intentional-act exception applies | Plains: Conduct, even if negligent or willful safety violations, does not show conscious purpose to inflict the specific injury required by the statute | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Plains; facts did not show the requisite conscious purpose to inflict injury, so exclusivity of workers’ compensation bars the tort claim |
| Proper construction of "conscious purpose" in § 65-01-01.1 | Bartholomay: "Conscious purpose" should align with common law/criminal intent and include substantial-certainty knowledge of consequences | Plains: Statutory language requires a higher, deliberate purpose to inflict injury distinct from substantial-certainty or willful misconduct | Court: "Conscious purpose" requires more than substantial certainty; Legislature’s wording narrows the exception and precludes adopting Zimmerman’s broader standard |
| Public policy argument that employers should not be immune for knowing safety violations | Bartholomay: Allowing immunity here undermines safety enforcement and policy; employers should face civil liability for knowing, intentional safety violations | Plains: Legislature defines public policy via the statutory scheme; immunity limits were intentionally set by the Legislature | Held: Court defers to Legislature; public-policy argument does not overcome the statutory standard for the exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerman v. Valdak Corp., 570 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1997) (adopted and discussed the intentional-tort exception and contrasted the substantial-certainty and true-intent tests)
- Fleck v. Missouri River Royalty Corp., 872 N.W.2d 329 (N.D. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Trinity Hosps. v. Mattson, 723 N.W.2d 684 (N.D. 2006) (workers’ compensation as exclusive remedy absent statutory exception)
- Barsness v. General Diesel & Equip. Co., Inc., 422 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1988) (discussing the general rule of exclusivity under workers’ compensation)