Edwin Van Dorn v. Scott Hunter, 919 F.3d 541

On Sept. 1, 2014, high winds downed utility poles; repair crews including Van Dorn (apprentice linesman) and Hunter (crew leader) were dispatched to fix them.
Hunter’s crew sought to secure a tensioned static (overhead ground) wire; instead of using a proper wire lip or safety rope, Hunter attached a digger-derrick winch latch hook to the wire and taped the latch open to improvisedly restrain it.
Hunter testified he checked the "bite" (area where a freed wire could strike) and saw no one there; Van Dorn was about 300 feet away removing arrestors on a neighboring pole but was within the bite.
The wire pulled out of the taped-open winch latch hook when released and struck Van Dorn in the face and head, causing serious injuries and multiple surgeries.
Van Dorn sued Hunter in Iowa federal court alleging co-employee gross negligence; the district court granted summary judgment for Hunter, concluding Van Dorn could not show gross negligence as a matter of law.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying Iowa’s three-part Thompson test for co-employee gross negligence and finding no genuine fact issue that Hunter knew injury was a probable result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Iowa workers’ compensation bars Van Dorn’s tort claim because the injury was not caused by co-employee gross negligence	Van Dorn contends Hunter’s improvised restraint showed wanton disregard and made injury probable, excusing the exclusivity bar	Hunter argues his method was a reasonable on-scene judgment used by others, and he exposed himself to the same risk, so it is at most ordinary negligence	Held for Hunter: summary judgment affirmed because Van Dorn failed to show Hunter knew injury was a probable (not merely possible) result
Whether undisputed evidence creates a genuine issue that Hunter knew of imminent danger and probability of injury (Thompson element 2)	Van Dorn asserts facts permit a jury to infer Hunter appreciated the probability of harm	Hunter points to testimony that crew agreed on the method and that they faced the same risk, undermining proof he appreciated a greater risk to others	Held: No genuine dispute—exposure of Hunter and crew to same risk shows lack of awareness that injury was probable

Leonetti’s Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Rew Mktg., 887 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Banks v. Slay, 875 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment principles)
Wood v. SatCom Mktg., LLC, 705 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2013) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Henrich v. Lorenz, 448 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 1989) (evidence defendants exposed themselves to same risk undermines finding they knew injury was probable)
Thompson v. Bohlken, 312 N.W.2d 501 (Iowa 1981) (three-part test for co-employee gross negligence)
Walker v. Mlakar, 489 N.W.2d 401 (Iowa 1992) (stringent standard for co-employee liability to avoid undue employer/employee consequences)
Taylor v. Peck, 382 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1986) (simple negligence insufficient for co-employee liability)