Gomez v. Crookham Company

457 P.3d 901 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mrs. Gomez was an employee of D for more than thirty years before her death. D determined that a new picking table was necessary to sort seeds more efficiently. A Crookham employee fabricated a new table and it was installed in the company's 'Scancore' room in late 2015. The table's drive shaft was not fully guarded and did not adhere to the required lockout-tagout procedures, even though OSHA had previously cited D for violating machine guard safety standards and lockout-tagout protocol. Mrs. Gomez was assigned to work in the Scancore room to clean the picking table between sorting batches of different varieties of seeds. To clean the picking table, employees used an air wand to blow seeds upward from beneath the table while the machine is operating. Mrs. Gomez was under the picking table attempting to clean it when the table's exposed drive shaft caught her hair and pulled her into the machine. She died from her injuries. OSHA issued 'serious' violations to D because it exposed its employees to the unguarded drive shaft without implementing lockout-tagout procedures. Ps filed their Complaint setting forth nine causes of action: (1) negligent design; (2) failure to warn; (3) strict liability-defective product; (4) strict liability-failure to warn; (5) breach of implied warranty of fitness and/or merchantability; (6) breach of express warranty; (7) strict liability-abnormally dangerous activity; (8) negligence/negligence per se; and (9) wrongful death. D moved for summary judgment. The court held that all of Ps' claims were barred by the exclusive remedy rule, that the unprovoked physical aggression exception to the exclusive remedy rule did not apply, that Mrs. Gomez was working within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred and that Ps' product liability claims failed because D was not a manufacturer of the picking table for product liability purposes. Ps appealed. Ps contend that the exclusive remedy rule does not bar civil death claims and that the Industrial Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over civil death claims. Ps argue that the exception to the exclusive remedy rule found in Idaho Code section 72-209(3) permits them to proceed with their claims because D committed unprovoked physical aggression against Mrs. Gomez.