Treaster v. Betts
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1495
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Treaster was a MoKan Transit Concrete driver who was injured when a broken concrete truck’s drum rotated during a cross-over procedure while he attempted to pour water into it.
- Treaster and his wife sued Betts, Jenson, and John/Jane Does for negligence in Buchanan County Circuit Court on January 3, 2008.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition May 7, 2008, ruling it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the Workers’ Compensation exclusivity provision.
- The Missouri Supreme Court later held that the exclusivity defense is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional defect, and must be proved under summary-judgment standards if raised.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, with Point One granted; Point Two became moot; WD71857 was dismissed for lack of briefing, and the court reversed and remanded WD71654 while dismissing WD71857.
- The relevant procedural posture involves whether the circuit court could adjudicate Treaster’s non- WC claim and how to apply the “something more” exception to co-employee immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction due to WC exclusivity | Treaster argues exclusivity is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional. | Respondents contend the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over mixed claims. | Exclusivity is not jurisdictional; affirmative defense proper standard governs on remand. |
| What standard applies to dismissal under WC exclusivity | Treaster contends genuine issues of material fact exist; summary-judgment standard should apply. | Respondents seek dismissal under an affirmative-defense framework. | Summary-judgment standard applies for ruling on an affirmative-defense dismissal. |
| Whether Treaster’s claim falls within an exception to co-employee immunity | Treaster asserts “something more” exception to co-employee immunity. | Respondents argue no exception established. | Burden-shifting analysis required; unresolved facts preclude dismissal at this stage. |
| Whether the case should be remanded or dismissed on the pending action | Remand to develop facts; Rule 55.08/55.27 procedures apply. | Dismissal or further proceedings under proper standards. | Remand for trial-level fact development; WD71857 dismissed for briefing issues. |
| Whether the pending action and abatement doctrines affect this appeal | Not argued on appeal; issues not properly briefed. | Procedural defenses foreclose consideration of unbriefed issues. | Unbriefed issues are abandoned; WD71857 dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. banc 2009) (WC exclusivity is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional; raises factual issues for summary judgment)
- Fortenberry v. Buck, 307 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (Affirmative-defense dismissal requires summary-judgment standards when raised to WC exclusivity)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (Summary-judgment standard for absence of genuine issues of material fact)
- State ex rel. Badami v. Gaertner, 630 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982) (Co-employee immunity under non-delegable duty considerations)
- Bradford v. BJC Corp. Health Servs., 200 S.W.3d 173 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (Elements for affirmative defense under workers’ compensation context)
- Robinson v. Hooker, 323 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (Pre-2005 WC amendments; treatment of immunities and dismissal approaches)