Napper v. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES
284 Va. 55
Va.2012Background
- Napper sued ABM and Monday for personal injuries from a lobby fall in Kastle Systems' building leased to Kastle; Kastle hired Monday to manage the property, which subcontracted janitorial work to ABM.
- Kastle leased space in a multi-tenant building; ABM cleaned Kastle's offices and common areas under contract with Monday.
- Napper, Kastle employee, was injured in the building’s lobby, not in Kastle’s leased space.
- Napper received workers’ compensation benefits, and ABM and Monday moved to bar her claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision.
- Trial court found ABM not strangers to Kastle’s work, held janitorial services were essential to Kastle’s business, and dismissed Napper’s suit as a statutory fellow employee case.
- This Court reverses, holding ABM were “other parties” and Napper’s tort claim not barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusivity bars Napper’s suit | Napper wasn’t injured in Kastle’s space; not a statutory fellow. | Napper is a statutory fellow employee; exclusivity bars her claim. | No; Napper not barred by exclusivity. |
| Whether Napper is a statutory fellow employee of ABM | ABM wasn’t performing work that is part of Kastle’s trade. | ABM performed essential cleaning for Kastle; fellow employee. | Napper is not a statutory fellow employee; ABM is an other party. |
| Whether janitorial work is part of Kastle’s trade, business, or occupation | Kastle didn’t require Kastle employees to perform cleaning; not part of Kastle’s business. | Cleaning is essential to Kastle’s business; ABM is not a stranger. | Cleaning alone not sufficient to make it part of Kastle’s trade. |
| Whether the record supports treating ABM as an ‘other party’ to Kastle’s business | Evidence shows Kastle employees didn’t clean common areas; ABM not performing Kastle’s work. | ABM’s janitorial services were essential to Kastle’s operations. | Record supports ABM as an other party; Napper not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. Int'l Cleaning Serv., Inc., 260 Va. 421 (2000) (stranger-to-the-work test; cleaning to aid business barred when part of employer’s trade)
- Whalen v. Dean Steel Erection Co., 229 Va. 164 (1985) (worker may sue subcontractor if not performing employer’s work; essential part test)
- Feitig v. Chalkley, 185 Va. 96 (1946) (origin of stranger-to-the-work concept; injury by outsider to business allowed suit)
- Stone v. Door-Man Mfg. Co., 260 Va. 406 () (worker against architect/contractors not barred if not part of owner’s business)