Hansen v. Ritter
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 876
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hursman was killed January 22, 2008 in a workplace accident at Wire Rope Corp. of America (Employer).
- Plaintiff Hansen, Hursman's mother, filed a wrongful death action naming the machine manufacturer and two employer employees, Snyder and Ritter.
- Amended petition alleged Snyder and Ritter owed duties to provide a safe workplace and to detect, correct, and warn about dangerous conditions.
- Trial court dismissed Counts II and III, holding co-employees do not owe fellow employees a personal duty to perform the employer’s non-delegable duties.
- Judge Martin's court clarified the ruling interpreted as narrow: co-employees lack a personal duty to perform employer non-delegable duties, not immunity entirely.
- Appeal followed the dismissal; issues focus on whether common-law duties exist independently of the employer’s non-delegable duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do co-employees owe a personal duty to fellow employees to maintain a safe workplace? | Hansen asserts Snyder and Ritter owe a personal duty arising from undertakings to provide safety. | Snyder and Ritter argue duties are only the employer's non-delegable duties, not personal duties. | No; co-employees do not owe independent personal duties to perform the employer’s non-delegable duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelso v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co., 85 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. 1935) (non-delegable duties remain employer's; co-employees not liable for failure to perform them)
- Lambert v. Jones, 98 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. 1936) (duty of care test; focus on whether a duty exists to third parties)
- Devine v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 162 S.W.2d 813 (Mo. 1942) (premises duty analysis; distinguishes independent duties from non-delegable duties)
- Badami v. Gaertner, 630 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. 1982) (introduced "something more" test; co-employee immunity under Act debated)
- Robinson v. Hooker, 323 S.W.3d 418 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (abrogated immunity for co-employees under Act; rights against co-employees remain at common law)
- Sylcox v. National Lead Co., 38 S.W.2d 497 (Mo. App. 1931) (Act does not remove common-law right against offending third party)
