Defoe v. Phillip
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 4
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Defoe was injured after Phillip, a coworker at HOVENSA, struck him with a vehicle on HOVENSA premises while Defoe walked across a private road at night; DOL workers’ compensation claim found VIWCA coverage and compensability for Defoe.
- Phillip was disciplined by HOVENSA for negligent driving after the accident.
- Defoe filed a VIWCA workers’ compensation claim and then, in 2007, filed a civil action against Phillip for negligent driving.
- Phillip moved for summary judgment arguing Defoe’s claim was barred by VIWCA § 284(a) as to an “employer” immune from suit.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment, holding Phillip was an “employer” for VIWCA purposes and barred Defoe’s action.
- Court reverses and remands, holding Phillip is not an “employer” under VIWCA § 284(a) and that Defoe may sue a non-employer co-employee under § 263.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does VIWCA immunity extend to a co-employee like Phillip? | Defoe argues co-employees are not shielded by § 284(a). | Phillip argues Tavarez v. Klingensmith extends immunity to co-employees. | No; VIWCA does not immunize Phillip; he is a third person. |
| Is Phillip an “employer” under VIWCA § 284(a) or a “third person”? | Phillip is not an employer; he should be treated as a third person. | Phillip should be treated as an employer under § 284(a). | Phillip is not an employer; Defoe may sue him as a third person under § 263. |
| Should the court follow Tavarez’s interpretation of § 284(a) or apply independent VIWCA language? | Third Circuit precedent is persuasive but not controlling; VIWCA language should be interpreted independently. | Tavarez supports extending immunity to co-employees. | Court adopts independent Virgin Islands statutory interpretation; rejects Tavarez’s co-employee immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tavarez v. Klingensmith, 372 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2004) (immunity to supervisor/coworker under VIWCA discussed leading to co-employee immunity issue)
- Pichardo v. V.I. Comm’r of Labor, 613 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2010) (defers to VI local law; supports independent VIWCA analysis)
- Gass v. V.I. Telephone Corp., 311 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2002) (statutory immunity § 284(b) interpretation discussion)
- Lewis v. Gov’t of the U.S.V.I., 620 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 2010) (deference to local law; context for VIWCA interpretation)
- Eddy v. V.I. Water and Power Authority, 369 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2004) (historical context of VIWCA definitions and legislative intent)