Board Reverses Summary Judgment When Disputed Facts Exist

By Traci Haynes, staff attorney, Gray

Summary judgment wasn’t appropriate in a case involving too many disputed facts, where the trial court didn’t explain why certain disputed facts were immaterial.

An earlier article discussed the oral arguments in Timothy Burke v. Steve Towers Enterprises. Burke was managing an automobile repair store, when he and a co-worker, “Graves,” began discussing a past sale of a gun. Another co-worker, “Daniels,” joined the conversation, saying he had a gun he could sell to Burke.

Daniels later accidentally shot Burke, causing extensive injuries. Burke sought workers’ compensation benefits, but his claim was denied, so he filed a lawsuit.

After discovery involving the lay witnesses, Towers filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Burke appealed.

On appeal, Towers’s central assertion was that the gun was present in the store due to Burke’s personal interest in possibly purchasing the weapon, which was in no way related to his job duties as the store manager.

Towers listed the following undisputed material facts:

Burke didn’t believe it was necessary to have a firearm for him to perform his job;
After learning that Graves had recently sold his gun, Burke told him that he might’ve been interested in buying the gun;
Burke told Daniels he’d be glad to look at the gun; and,
Burke walked into the lobby of the store holding the gun.

Burke disputed these facts in his response and raised several issues that he contended were disputed material facts. They were:

It was safe for Burke to unload the loaded gun that Daniels brought into the store.
A (post-injury) termination letter mentioned an employer policy that Burke didn’t get training for by Towers.

In a reply, Towers disputed these statements but also said they weren’t material to the legal issue underlying the dispositive motion.

Towers disputed other additional facts, such as:

Whether Burke was on the phone at the time of the shooting;
Whether Burke’s supervisor carried a gun;
Whether Burke had been told making deposits at night was unsafe;
Whether Burke intended to buy a gun;
Whether Burke knew Daniels was bringing the gun into the store;
When Burke realized the gun was in the store;
Whether it was appropriate for Burke to handle the gun in the store; and,
Whether Burke handled the gun for purposes of potentially purchasing it rather than to unload it.

Towers contended that, although these facts were disputed, none of them was material to the legal issue, and regardless of how they might be resolved, the injury didn’t arise primarily out of the employment.

The Board wrote that a fact is “material” if “it must be decided in order to resolve the substantive claim or defense at which the motion is directed.”

Towers maintained the injuries didn’t arise from his employment regardless of any factual disputes. So, the Board reasoned, “to assess whether summary judgment was appropriate, we must consider the disputed facts, of which there are many, and determine whether any of them must be resolved by the factfinder to address the compensability of the claim.”

The Board cited case law from 1919 and 1924 to define when an injury arises out employment:

“[A]n injury arises out of the employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury.” In addition, “an employee cannot merely assert that [his] injury occurred at work; [he] has to allege that [his] injury resulted from a danger or hazard peculiar to the work or be caused by a risk inherent in the nature of the work.”

Per the caselaw, a co-worker who acts outside the course of his employment can be held liable for injuries he caused another person. However, whether the act was outside the course of the employment is “a question of fact,” and, “[a]n appellate court should be slow to make factual determinations in the absence of a full hearing.”

The Board concluded that the trial court didn’t fully explain why the factual issues in dispute were immaterial to the legal question at hand.

They wrote: “[T]he parties dispute exactly what sequence of events led to the gun’s being inside the store; why Employee handled the gun once it was in the store; and what actions took place causing the gun to be fired. It is further disputed what was required of Employee as a manager to ensure the safety and security of the store and general public and what policies, if any, Employer had regarding the presence of guns in the workplace.”

Therefore, Burke met his burden of showing genuine issues of material fact on the question of whether his injury arose primarily out of his employment, making summary judgment inappropriate.

The case returns to the trial court for alternative dispute resolution and potentially a compensation hearing.