Gina Young, Administratrix v. Apogee Coal Co.
753 S.E.2d 52
W. Va.2013Background
- Gina Young, Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Young, Jr., sued Apogee Coal and Browning after Young was killed by a counterweight incident under Browning's supervision.
- Petitioner asserted a deliberate-intent claim under W. Va. Code § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii) against Browning and Apogee for a specific unsafe working condition.
- The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia certified whether a non-employer “person” may be sued under § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii).
- West Virginia Code § 23-2-6 and § 23-2-6a provide immunity to employers and certain non-employer persons acting in the employer’s business, unless deliberate intent is shown.
- The WV Supreme Court conducted de novo statutory construction and held that a non-employer person may not be a defendant under § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii).
- The court emphasized express language and the canons of expressio unius and holistic statute interpretation to resolve the certified question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a non-employer person be sued under § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii)? | Weekly line of cases supports liability against individuals. | Statutory text limits liability to employers under (d)(2)(ii). | No; non-employer person cannot be sued under (d)(2)(ii). |
| Does (d)(2) permit collective reference to both employers and persons? | Employer or person language implies broader liability. | Text ties liability to the employer in (ii) and excludes persons. | Expressio unius confirms liability limited to employers in (d)(2)(ii). |
| Should immunity be treated as identical for employers and persons under (d)(2)? | Immunity should be identical so that non-employers can be liable like employers when deliberate intent is shown. | Immunity and the proof standards differ; statute contemplates different targets. | Immunity is governed by the statute; non-employers are not defendants under (d)(2)(ii). |
Key Cases Cited
- Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W.Va. 27 (1998) (de novo review for certified questions; statutory interpretation guidance)
- Aikens v. Debow, 208 W.Va. 486 (2000) (de novo review when interpretation of statute is at issue)
- Mayles v. Shoney’s, Inc., 185 W.Va. 88 (1990) (two distinct methods to prove deliberate intent under § 23-4-2(d)(2))
- Phillips v. Larry’s Drive-In Pharmacy, Inc., 220 W.Va. 484 (2007) (expressio unius maxim in statutory interpretation)
- Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 207 W.Va. 203 (1999) (cardinal rule of giving effect to every part of a statute)
- Manchin v. Dunfee, 174 W.Va. 532 (1984) (expressio unius exclusio alterius principle in interpretation)