384 S.W.3d 305
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs William and Carolyn Flowers sue Dollar General and Gage for Kasi Flowers' wrongful death; Dollar General asserts exclusive remedy under § 287.120.2 and Gage argues petition fails to state duty.
- “Kasi” Flowers, 18, worked as a cashier at a Dollar General in Campbell, MO; Meadows, Kasi's boyfriend, assaulted her prior to Kasi’s death.
- On Aug 12, 2006, Meadows returned with a rifle, killed Kasi, and then killed himself; Meadows had earlier assaulted Kasi on Aug 11.
- Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action in May 2008; Dollar General and Gage moved for summary judgment in March 2011, which the trial court granted.
- On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the exclusive remedy defense (Point I) and the denial of extensions to respond (Points II & III); the court reverses Dollar General’s grant and affirms Gage’s grant.
- The judgment in favor of Dollar General is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; the judgment in favor of Gage is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §287.120.2 bars the wrongful death claim against Dollar General | Flowers argue the facts do not show an employment-related accident | Dollar General argues Kasi's death arose out of and in the course of employment as an unprovoked assault under §287.120 | Not barred; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying extension to respond to Dollar General’s motion | Extensions were warranted due to excusable neglect | No excusable neglect; denial proper | Moot due to Point I ruling |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying extension to respond out of time to Gage’s motion | There was excusable neglect and need for more time | No excusable neglect; calendar error not excusable | No abuse; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (defining summary judgment standards for defending party)
- Treaster v. Betts, 324 S.W.3d 487 (Mo.App.2010) (exclusive remedy defense viability under § 287.120)
- Fortenberry v. Buck, 307 S.W.3d 676 (Mo.App.2010) (summary judgment and exclusive remedy doctrine)
- Person v. Scullin Steel Co., 523 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1975) (legislative amendment to § 287.120.1 and assault doctrine)
- Freeman v. Callow, 525 S.W.2d 371 (Mo.App.1975) (private quarrel non-compensability under assault doctrine)
- Scheper v. Hair Repair, Ltd., 825 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App.1992) (private quarrel assaults not compensable)
- Thompson v. Delmar Gardens of Chesterfield, Inc., 885 S.W.2d 780 (Mo.App.1994) (personal motive attacks not compensable)
- Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo.banc 1998) (excusable neglect standard for extensions)