636 F. App'x 108
3rd Cir.2015Background
- George Garlick, a water-truck driver employed by Trans Tech Logistics (TTL), made deliveries to Anadarko fracking sites under routes/directions provided by Anadarko.
- TTL leased drivers and trucks to QC, which operated a bulk-tank trucking network and contracted with TTL to haul water to Anadarko sites.
- On May 15–16, 2012, Garlick completed one delivery, left the site, returned to the water facility, then failed to return to the site and was killed when his tanker ran off a steep mountain road about 2.5 miles past the turn to the site.
- Maria Garlick sued QC and Anadarko for negligence; TTL (Garlick’s direct employer) was dismissed because it provided workers’ compensation and was immune.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to both QC (as a statutory employer entitled to workers’ compensation immunity) and Anadarko (no negligence); the Third Circuit affirmed QC’s immunity but vacated Anadarko’s dismissal and remanded for trial on negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QC is a Section 302(a) statutory employer | QC cannot be a statutory employer because the QC–TTL contract labels TTL an independent contractor | QC delegated a regular part of its business (bulk liquid transport) to TTL and thus is a statutory employer under PWCA §302(a) | QC is a statutory employer and is immune under PWCA §481(a); summary judgment for QC affirmed |
| Scope of immunity for a Section 302(a) statutory employer | Statutory employer should be immune only if it actually pays compensation after subcontractor default | Section 481(a) provides immunity to any employer under the Act, including statutory employers, regardless of payment occurrence | Immunity covers Section 302(a) statutory employers as quid pro quo for secondary liability; no requirement that statutory employer have paid benefits to be immune |
| Whether Anadarko owed and breached a duty regarding route safety | Anadarko undertook to provide safe routes/directions and was negligent in failing to provide adequate signage/lighting at the missed turn | Anadarko argued no actionable negligence as a matter of law | A jury could find Anadarko undertook to provide the safest route and that failing to provide signs/lighting could breach that duty and be a substantial factor in causing the crash; summary judgment for Anadarko vacated and remanded |
| Reliance and causation under Restatement §323 | Garlick reasonably relied on Anadarko’s directions, increasing risk when signs/lights absent | Any alleged duty or reliance was insufficient as a matter of law; governmental actors control signage | Under the unique facts, reasonable reliance and causal dispute present genuine issues for trial; remand for factual resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Rolick v. Collins Pine Co., 925 F.2d 661 (3d Cir. 1991) (PWCA exclusivity and employer immunity context)
- Six L’s Packing Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Williamson), 44 A.3d 1148 (Pa. 2012) (statutory employer doctrine and purpose)
- Patton v. Worthington Assocs., Inc., 89 A.3d 643 (Pa. 2014) (statutory employer analysis and remedial purpose)
- Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for interpretation of state law on summary judgment)
- Spence v. ESAB Grp, Inc., 623 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2010) (application of Restatement §323 to undertaken duties)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) (genuine issue requires sufficient evidentiary basis)
- Thompson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (USF&G Co.), 781 A.2d 1146 (Pa. 2001) (exclusive remedy and employer immunity under PWCA)
- McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930) (definition and nature of statutory employer)