Estate of Teague v. Crossroads Co-op Assn.
286 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Teague died in a grain bin after OSHA violations by Crossroads; estate sued in district court for torts, not workers’ compensation.
- District court dismissed the complaint as within the Act’s exclusivity; relied on Abbott v. Gould, Inc.
- OSHA penalties were assessed against Crossroads, and Crossroads pled guilty to criminal OSHA violation.
- Estate sought a judicial determination that the Act did or did not apply, or that it was unconstitutional.
- Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act is intended to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, guiding the dismissal.
- Court emphasizes the Act’s purpose to replace common-law remedies with prompt compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether death is an accident under the Act | Estate argues intentional torts could fall outside exclusivity | Crossroads contends death is an accident under the Act | Yes; death is an accident under the Act; exclusivity applies |
| Whether there is an intentional tort exception to the Act | Estate seeks broader intentional conduct exception | Abbott/Harsh preclude such an exception | No; declines to adopt a substantially certain or broader intentional-exception rule |
| Constitutionality of the Act under equal protection and due process | Act creates unconstitutional disparities | Classification rational and within legislative power | No; Act constitutional; classifications rational |
| Whether dismissal under § 6-1112(b)(6) was proper for constitutional claims | Constitutional challenges should not be dismissed at pleading stage | Constitutional issues properly addressed on motion to dismiss | Properly dismissed; constitutional claims resolved on law interpretation |
| Whether the Act’s exclusive remedy deprives estate of jury trial rights | Seventh Amendment right should apply to tort claims | Supreme Court cases reject jury-trial challenges to workers’ compensation | No violation; Act does not violate right to jury trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 907 (1989) (intentional conduct exception not recognized; exclusivity preserved)
- Harsh International v. Monfort Indus., 266 Neb. 82 (2003) (reaffirms no intentional-tort exception to exclusivity)
- Memorial Hosp. of Dodge Cty. v. Porter, 4 Neb. App. 716 (1996) (discussion of statutory remedies and damages in context)
- P.A.M. v. Quad L. Assocs., 221 Neb. 642 (1986) (precedent on workers’ compensation exclusivity)
- Ihm v. Crawford & Co., 254 Neb. 818 (1998) (intentional torts and exclusivity principles)
- Marlow v. Maple Manor Apartments, 193 Neb. 654 (1975) (earlier exclusivity and accident definitions)
- Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. North Platte NRD, 280 Neb. 533 (2010) (statutory interpretation and workers’ compensation scope)
- Otto v. Hahn, 209 Neb. 114 (1981) (legislative intent and exclusivity principles)
- Le v. Lautrup, 271 Neb. 931 (2006) (due process/equal protection considerations in classifications)
- Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219 (1917) (Seventh Amendment jury-trial considerations and compensation statutes)