EZKM Wins Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision Regarding Wrongful Death Claim Against Co-Employee

The Erickson Law Firm successfully argued that a wrongful death claim against a co-employee cannot be brought when the co-employee acted in the course and scope of employment. On November 12, 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, affirmed the summary judgment ruling in favor of Defendants Elvis Perez Hernandez and JC Fence LLC, dismissing Plaintiff Zoila Salguero’s wrongful death claim. Salguero v. Hernandez, et al., A24-0479 (Minn. Ct. App. 2024).

In 2021, Hernandez was operating a truck and trailer at a construction site. Hernandez worked for JC Fence. Decedent crawled under the trailer to reconnect the light cables and then came back out from underneath the trailer. Hernandez entered the truck to pull the truck and trailer forward, unaware that decedent went back underneath the trailer. Decedent died due to the injuries sustained.

Salguero, on behalf of the heirs and next-of-kin of decedent, brought suit against JC Fence and Hernandez. Salguero alleged Hernandez acted “grossly negligent”, and those actions directly caused decedent’s death. JC Fence and Hernandez moved for summary judgment, arguing Hernandez had coemployee immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act and, since Hernandez was immune, there could be no vicarious liability for his employer JC Fence. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JC Fence and Hernandez.

Salguero challenged the summary-judgment ruling arguing the district court erred in determining: (1) she did not plead the No-Fault act in her complaint to give notice to respondents of that theory of liability; (2) the coemployee immunity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred her claim because Hernandez owed no personal duty to the deceased; and (3) she could not establish a means of imputing vicarious liability on JC Fence. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court of Appeals held Salguero failed to plead the No-Fault Act in her complaint. The court agreed with Hernandez and JC Fence that “the information in the complaint must sufficiently put the opposing party on notice of the claims against it.” Halva v. Minn. State Colls. & Univs., 953 N.W.2d 496, 500 (Minn. 2021). Salguero made no mention of a No-Fault Act claim until oral argument in opposition to summary judgment. The last-minute mention of a No-Fault Act claim failed to adequately provide notice to Hernandez and JC Fence of that claim.

Further, Salguero argued that, under a gross-negligence theory, Hernandez does not qualify for coemployee immunity. For an employee to owe a personal duty to another employee, the coemployee must have taken direct action toward the injured employee and acted outside the scope of employment. Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, 705 N.W.2d 746, 757 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 176.001). Hernandez operating a truck and trailer owned by JC Fence was well within the scope of his employment, as he regularly utilized the truck to transport fencing materials and was authorized to do so. On the date of the incident, Hernandez was asked by the owner of JC Fence to move the truck. Therefore, even if driving the truck was not part of Hernandez’s explicitly defined duties at JC Fence, he was performing the action in furtherance of the employer’s business, making his conduct within the course and scope of his employment. Because Hernandez owed no personal duty to the decedent and could not be negligent, vicarious liability could not be imputed to JC Fence.

If you have any questions about this case, please contact Matt Johnson.