896 N.W.2d 504
Minn.2017Background
- Ulland Brothers (general contractor) subcontracted Kraemer Construction to provide a crane and two-person crane crew to place 22,000‑lb concrete culvert sections during bridge repairs; Ulland supplied culverts, bulldozer, rigging, and a four‑person crew.
- On October 4, 2012, while lowering the final culvert section, Ulland employee Richard Washburn grabbed the section and was electrocuted; survivors received workers’ compensation from Ulland.
- Plaintiff Kelly (trustee for next‑of‑kin) sued Kraemer for negligence; Kraemer moved for summary judgment invoking the workers’ compensation election‑of‑remedies provision and the common‑enterprise defense.
- The McCourtie three‑part test applies: (1) same project (conceded), (2) common activity (interdependence/coordination), and (3) same or similar hazards.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; court of appeals reversed; Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding Kraemer met parts (2) and (3) as a matter of law (except a genuine issue existed about electrocution specifically, but other shared hazards sufficed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether crews were engaged in a common activity (McCourtie prong 2) | Crews had distinct, non‑interdependent functions; occasional assistance (e.g., signalman helping rig) was volunteer and should be ignored | Work was interdependent and required close, contemporaneous coordination; neither crew could place culverts alone | Held: crews were working together in a common activity as a matter of law (interdependence shown) |
| Whether crews were subject to same or similar hazards (McCourtie prong 3) | Risks differed by role; electrocution causation disputed; shared‑hazard showing is speculative | Expert affidavit established multiple shared, non‑speculative risks (crane load impact, crane failure, bulldozer collision, slipping) | Held: crews were subject to same or similar hazards as a matter of law (shared non‑speculative hazards sufficient); a factual issue remained only on whether electrocution risk extended to crane operator |
| Whether election‑of‑remedies bars plaintiff's civil suit | Kelly argued factual disputes preclude summary judgment and election should not bar tort suit | Kraemer argued election applies because workers’ comp benefits were paid and common‑enterprise established | Held: election‑of‑remedies applies; Kelly’s suit barred and summary judgment for Kraemer affirmed |
| Proper scope of volunteer/favor evidence in common‑enterprise analysis | Volunteer acts (favors/accommodations) should be excluded when assessing interdependence and shared hazards | Even excluding volunteer acts, interdependence and shared hazards remain; voluntariness need not be resolved | Held: court resolved case without relying on volunteer acts; interdependence and hazards stand as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 93 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1958) (announces three‑part common‑enterprise test)
- O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. 1996) (interdependence and coordination can make common activity a matter of law)
- Schleicher v. Lunda Constr. Co., 406 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. 1987) (minimal overlap and distinct duties do not satisfy common activity)
- Kaiser v. N. States Power Co., 353 N.W.2d 899 (Minn. 1984) (distinct functions, even when coordinated, may not create a common activity)
- Gleason v. Geary, 8 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 1943) (framework discussing pooled servant concept)
- O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. 1996) (also cited for application of shared‑hazards analysis)
- Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc. v. Hangsleben, 505 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 1993) (mere speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment)