Trial News

The Idaho Supreme Court has revived a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of a woman killed by equipment at the wholesale seed distributor where she worked. The court ruled that although the family had received workers’ compensation benefits, the district court erred when it failed to consider whether the defendant employer was also civilly liable because it consciously disregarded a known danger. (Gomez v. Crookham Co., 2020 WL 611082 (Idaho Feb. 10, 2020).)

Francisca Gomez worked at Crookham Co., and in January 2016, she was assigned to clean beneath a motorized table used for seed sorting. Installed the previous year by a company employee, the table’s drive shaft was not fully guarded and had no lockout procedures even though OSHA had previously cited the company for violating machine guard and lockout safety standards.

While Francisca was cleaning under the table, the exposed drive shaft caught her hair and pulled her into the machine. She died from her injuries. OSHA again investigated Crookham and issued “‘serious’ violations” for failing to protect worker safety.

Following Francisca’s death, her family, the Gomezes, received workers’ comp benefits. The Gomezes later brought several claims against Crookham, including failure to warn and wrongful death. The lower court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, ruling that all claims were barred.

On appeal, the state high court agreed with the lower court that, when read together, Idaho Code §§72-2091(1), 72-209, and 72-211 establish that employers’ tort liability for worker injuries that occur in the course of employment is limited to workers’ comp benefits, even for work-related deaths. The court also determined, however, that the lower court improperly failed to consider whether the §72-209(3) exception applied, which allows civil actions against an employer—even after the receipt of workers’ comp benefits—if the employer “commits an act of ‘willful or unprovoked physical aggression’ against the employee.”

The Idaho legislature did not define the terms “willful,” “unprovoked,” or “physical aggression,” but the Idaho Supreme Court has analyzed the terms in several cases. The court cited Marek v. Hecla, Ltd. (161 Idaho 211 (Idaho 2016)), which found that “aggression towards an employee may come in forms other than an outright attack” and that the §72-209(3) exception applies when plaintiffs can show that the employer knew “or consciously disregarded knowledge that employee injury would result from the employer’s action.” This appeal, the court said, presented it an opportunity to “flesh out the circumstances” that would satisfy the consciously disregarded knowledge test.

After Marek, the court said, the key to this analysis is whether the employer knew of a danger but ignored it: “Such actors who turn a blind eye to known dangers remain liable under the exception to the statute because they consciously disregarded a known risk.” In this case, the Gomezes had presented evidence that the defendant’s failure to guard the drive shaft was a serious safety violation and that OSHA had cited the defendant for similar violations before Francisca’s death. The court reversed and remanded, instructing the lower court to review this evidence to determine whether, by ignoring a known risk to Francisca’s safety, the defendant had committed an act of “unprovoked physical aggression” such that the §72-209(3) exception applies.

“My clients are grateful that those responsible for Francisca’s death will be held accountable,” said Nampa, Idaho, attorney Kevin Dinius, who represents the plaintiffs. “This decision that a ‘reckless’ standard will determine whether the statutory exception will apply is a tremendous shift in the law and will serve to protect workers in Idaho from unsafe practices designed to put profits over people.”

Please set a Datasource.