Thomas Adkins v. Kiah Creek Transportation, LLC
16-0589
| W. Va. | May 22, 2017Background
- In May 2013 Adkins, an employee of Kiah Creek Transportation, was driving a company Mack coal truck (no. 10) when it allegedly shut off on a hill, rolled backward, and crashed; Adkins sustained injuries.
- Adkins testified he had previously reported recurring fuel and brake problems with that truck and had refused to drive it in 2012; other drivers used the truck without reported incident.
- Maintenance and repair records showed regular service and brake adjustments; driver inspection reports before the crash showed the truck was satisfactory, and Adkins performed an inspection the day of the accident and reported no problems.
- Adkins sued in May 2015 alleging deliberate intention under West Virginia Code § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii); Kiah Creek moved for summary judgment in April 2016.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment, finding Adkins failed to create a genuine issue on several statutory elements (specific unsafe condition, employer actual knowledge, and intentional exposure) and denied Adkins’ request for additional discovery.
- Adkins appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the deliberate-intention standards and discovery-rule principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adkins) | Defendant's Argument (Kiah Creek) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a specific unsafe working condition (brakes/fuel) | Truck had recurring fuel shut-offs and weak brakes; maintenance records and prior complaints corroborate condition | Maintenance/repair records show regular service and brake adjustments; inspection reports by other drivers and Adkins on accident day showed no safety issues | Court: No genuine issue that a specific unsafe condition existed; summary judgment proper |
| Employer actual knowledge of the specific unsafe condition | Prior complaints to supervisors and prior refusal to drive the truck show employer knew | No documentary evidence or regulatory citations; records do not show employer knew of a specific hazardous condition | Court: Adkins failed to prove actual knowledge; element not satisfied |
| Employer intentionally exposing employee despite knowledge | Employer assigned the truck to Adkins despite prior complaints | Assignments and use by other drivers without issues undermines claim; no evidence of intentional exposure | Court: No genuine issue on intentional exposure; element not satisfied |
| Request for continuance to complete discovery (depositions) | Adkins needed depositions of former employees to corroborate his claims; counsel alleged miscommunication about witness availability | No timely Rule 56(f) affidavit or motion; no good cause shown; records already lacked supporting evidence | Court: Denial of additional discovery was proper; Adkins failed to meet Powderidge/Rule 56(f) requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; standard for granting summary judgment)
- Smith v. Apex Pipeline Serv., Inc., 230 W.Va. 620, 741 S.E.2d 845 (W. Va. 2013) (deliberate-intention five-factor framework and summary judgment application)
- Mumaw v. U.S. Silica Co., 204 W.Va. 6, 511 S.E.2d 117 (W. Va. 1998) (failure to raise a material dispute on any single deliberate-intention element warrants summary judgment)
- Marcus v. Holley, 217 W.Va. 508, 618 S.E.2d 517 (W. Va. 2005) (plaintiff must make a prima facie showing on each of the five factors to avoid summary judgment)
- Powderidge Unit Owners Assoc. v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692, 474 S.E.2d 872 (W. Va. 1996) (standards for Rule 56(f) continuance/requests for additional discovery)