Hickman v. Boomers

554 P.3d 99

Samuel HICKMAN and Emma Hickman, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

Jason Rolfe, an individual, Plaintiff,

v.BOOMERS, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company; Boomers Crane and Transport, Inc., an Idaho corporation; Michael Landon, an individual; and Colter James Johnson, an individual, Defendants-Respondents.

Docket No. 50543-2023

Supreme Court of Idaho, Pocatello, June 2024 Term.

Opinion Filed: August 14, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Michael J. Whyte, District Judge.

The decisions of the district court are reversed and remanded.

Hopkins Roden Crockett, Hansen & Hoopes, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for Appellants Samuel Hickman and Emma Hickman. Jedediah A. Bigelow argued.

Kirton McConkie, St. George, Utah, for Respondents Boomers, LLC, Michael Landon, and Colter James Johnson. David P. Gardner argued.

ZAHN, Justice.

This case concerns the "willful or unprovoked physical aggression" exception to the exclusive remedy rule of Idaho’s Worker’s Compensation Law. On April 29, 2019, Samuel Hickman was electrocuted when a boom crane contacted overhead power lines. Samuel Hickman and his wife brought a personal injury suit against the owner of the boom truck, Boomers, LLC, and its owner Michael Landon, and Colter James Johnson, the employee who was operating the boom crane at the time of the accident (collectively, "Boomers").

Boomers moved for summary judgment, arguing they were immune from tort liability pursuant to the exclusive remedy rule. Hickman responded that the accident fell within the "willful or unprovoked physical aggression" exception to the rule. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed Hickman’s claims. Hickman then filed a mo- tion for reconsideration, which the district court also denied.

On appeal, Hickman argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it failed to properly apply the standard for the willful or unprovoked physical aggression exception articulated in Gomez v. Crookham Co., 166 Idaho 249, 457 P.3d 901 (2020), and that it erred in denying a motion for reconsideration. We reverse the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration and the granting of the motion for summary judgment. We hold that the district court failed to properly apply our holding from Gomez and that, based on the evidence submitted in connection with the motion for reconsideration, there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the day of the accident at issue in this appeal, Samuel Hickman was employed by King Builders, LLC. King Builders is a framing contractor and had been hired to frame a house. Richard King is the owner of King Builders. King Builders subcontracted with Boomers, LLC, a crane company, to set trusses on the home construction site. Michael Landon is the owner of Boomers, LLC. King called Landon to discuss the job and informed Landon that the trusses were located underneath power lines and would need to be removed from beneath the power lines before they could be set into place.

On April 29, 2019, Colter James Johnson, an employee of Boomers, LLC, arrived at the worksite to move the trusses. Johnson was licensed to operate a boom truck with a hydraulic crane. By the time Johnson arrived on site, employees of King Builders had moved all but one of the trusses out from under the power lines by hand. The remaining truss was too heavy for the employees to move by hand. The parties dispute whether, following Johnson’s arrival on site, they discussed a plan to move the remaining truss. Regardless, Johnson began operating the boom crane to move the truss from under the power lines. Hickman’s role was to connect a metal cable from the boom to the truss. Johnson would then use the boom crane to move the truss from under the power lines and raise it to set the truss on the house frame.

King was on site watching Johnson move the truss. The parties dispute whether Johnson asked King to be a spotter for him. While Johnson was moving the boom crane into place to remove the truss from under the power lines, King walked away to take a phone call. The parties dispute what happened next. Hickman stated that Johnson continued to operate the boom crane, while Johnson maintained that he stopped moving the boom crane and Hickman grabbed the cable to guide it to the truss. The parties agree that, while Hickman was holding the cable, the boom crane either contacted the overhead power lines or came close enough that electricity arced from the power lines to the boom crane and then to the metal cable, electrocuting Hickman. Hickman sustained severe injuries and received worker’s compensation benefits as a result of the accident.

Hickman and his wife brought a personal injury claim against Boomers, LLC, Boomers Crane and Transport, Inc., Landon, and Johnson, alleging that their negligent and reckless actions resulted in Hickman’s electrocution. Hickman alleged he suffered severe physical injuries, emotional injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of household services, and loss of consortium. The parties later stipulated to dismiss Boomers Crane and Transport, Inc., from the lawsuit and it is not a party to this appeal.

Boomers, Landon, and Johnson (collectively "Boomers") thereafter moved for summary judgment, arguing that, as statutory co-employees of Hickman, they were immune from liability under the exclusive remedy rule of Idaho’s worker’s compensation laws. In support, Boomers submitted Hickman’s deposition in which he admitted that he received worker’s compensation benefits as a result of his accident.

Hickman opposed the motion and argued that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply because the circumstances fell within the "willful or unprovoked physical aggression" exception contained in Idaho Code section 72-209(3). Hickman argued that this Court’s decision in Gomez v. Crookham Co., 166 Idaho 249, 457 P.3d 901 (2020), interpreted the "willful or unprovoked physical aggression" exception to include instances when an employer consciously disregarded knowledge that an injury would result to an employee. Hickman argues that this standard also applies to Boomers as statutory co-employees. Hickman argued that, when viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the evidence established at least a genuine issue of material fact that Landon and Johnson had knowledge of the danger the power lines presented and Johnson "consciously disregarded" this knowledge and operated the boom crane too close to the power lines— resulting in Hickman being electrocuted.

In support of his opposition, Hickman submitted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") report completed following the accident, which generally described the accident, its cause, and future safety precautions to prevent a similar accident from reoccurring. Hickman also submitted deposition excerpts in which Johnson described the accident, and deposition excerpts in which Landon described his conversation with King about the power lines and the safety rules for his crane operators. Finally, Hickman submitted a deposition in which he described the accident and his subsequent injuries.

In their reply, Boomers argued that Gomez did not articulate the correct standard because section 72-209(3) was amended in 2020 in response to the Gomez decision. The amendments added language indicating that, to establish the applicability of the physical aggression exception, a party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the employer or its employees specifically intended to harm the employee or that they engaged in conduct knowing that injury or death to the employee was substantially likely to occur. Boomers argued that the 2020 amendments to section 72-209(3) demonstrated that the legislature did not intend for the "willful or unprovoked physical aggression" exception to encompass acts of simple negligence. Boomers argued that, at most, Johnson’s conduct was simply negligent because it was possible to safely move the truss and Johnson had a plan for doing so.

The district court granted Boomers’ motion for summary judgment. It applied the 2020 version of section 72-209(3) that included the amendments enacted in response to this Court’s decision in Gomez. The district court concluded that King and Johnson had a plan to move the truss safely, but that the plan was implemented negligently. There was no evidence that Boomers intended to injure Hickman or that they had actual knowledge that Hickman’s injury was substantially likely to occur. The district court therefore concluded that the willful or unprovoked physical aggression exception in section 72-209(3) did not apply. The court explicitly declined to apply the "consciously disregarded knowledge" standard from Gomez, reasoning that the legislature never intended the standard to be applied to the willful or unprovoked physical aggression exception in section 72-209(3).

Hickman filed a motion for reconsideration along with four new declarations and the complete transcripts of depositions taken earlier in the case. Hickman argued that the district court erred by applying the 2020 amended version of section 72-209(3) because the amendment did not become effective until after Hickman’s accident. Applying the version of section 72-209(3) in effect at the time of Hickman’s accident, Hickman argued that the district court was bound by this Court’s interpretation of the willful and unprovoked physical aggression exception in Gomez and that, under the "consciously disregarded knowledge" standard, there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Boomers’ conduct satisfied that exception. Hickman asserted that the new declarations he submitted showed that the facts relied on by the district court in granting summary judgment were disputed by the parties. Specifically, Hickman...