Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A lower court must resolve whether a crane operator that allegedly injured a Commercial Air employee was his co-employee, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in vacating a district court decision.
According to court records, Jason Beckner worked for Commercial Air, Inc. constructing a home.
To lift trusses onto the roof, Commercial Air rented a crane for one day from Maxim Crane Works, L.P., which provided the crane, equipment and an operator.
Beckner contends that the crane operator injured him, and he sued Maxim Crane for negligence, under a theory of vicarious liability.
Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act is the exclusive civil remedy for an employee injured by an employer or co-employee, according to the 7th Circuit.
The parties agreed that if the crane operator and Beckner were both employees of Commercial Air, then the act bars Beckner’s tort suit against Maxim Crane.
Beckner sued Maxim Crane and other related entities in Indiana state court, claiming negligence.
He sought to recover for his injuries, medical costs and lost wages; his wife also sued for loss of consortium.
The defendants—citizens of Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York—removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The parties later agreed to dismiss all defendants except Maxim Crane.
Maxim Crane filed two motions. First, it moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that, because Emmitt Pugh, the crane operator, was co-employed by Maxim Crane and Commercial Air, Beckner’s exclusive remedy was under Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act.
The Beckners responded that Commercial Air did not employ Pugh.
While that motion was pending, Maxim Crane moved for summary judgment, reiterating that Commercial Air also employed Pugh and adding that it was not negligent.
The Indiana Southern District Court ruled at summary judgment that the crane operator was also employed by Commercial Air and was therefore Beckner’s co-employee.
In its opinion, the 7th Circuit employed tests from Hale v. Kemp, 579 N.E.2d 63, 67 (Ind. 1991) and Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007, 1010 (Ind. 2001) to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
The 7th Circuit also looked at whether the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact or law.
The court ruled that genuine disputes are present as to factors that materially affect the existence of an employer/employee relationship.
It added that a reasonable jury could rule in the Beckners’ favor by deciding that Commercial Air does not employ Pugh.
“As the Beckners correctly note, ‘the fact that [a person] only worked … for one day leads to the inference that he would not have believed such a[n employment] relationship existed.’ Verma v. D.T. Carpentry, LLC, 805 N.E.2d 430, 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). A factfinder thus must resolve these opposing inferences,” the appellate court’s per curiam opinion stated.
The 7th Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve those fact issues.
The case is Jason Beckner and Jodi Beckner v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 23-2929.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.