Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Davis v. MC DIXON LUMBER CO., INC.
Citations: 551 So. 2d 305; 1989 Ala. LEXIS 633; 1989 WL 122580Docket: 87-1342, 87-1363
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; September 8, 1989; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Annie R. Davis, as administratrix of Charlie G. Davis's estate, appealed separate summary judgments in favor of M.C. Dixon Lumber Company and Robert Nolan, d/b/a Pataula Wood Company, following a workplace accident that resulted in Charlie's fatal injuries. The core issues involved whether the summary judgment was appropriate for Dixon concerning a failure to warn about a dangerous condition and for Pataula regarding allegations of negligence. M.C. Dixon Lumber operated a mill in Barbour County and contracted with Eufaula Pulpwood Company (EPC) for log harvesting and transportation. EPC, in turn, hired Robert Nolan to deliver timber to Dixon. On June 24, 1985, Charlie was found dead after a log fell from his truck, with no witnesses to the incident. Pataula contended that Charlie was their employee, thus invoking the exclusivity provisions of the Alabama Workmen’s Compensation Act, specifically sections 25-5-52 and 25-5-53, which limit the rights of employees to seek damages outside of workers' compensation for injuries or fatalities incurred during employment. Conversely, Davis claimed Charlie was an independent contractor, disputing Pataula's claim of employee status. Evidence indicated Pataula had provided workmen's compensation insurance for Charlie and that Davis had received benefits post-incident, complicating the argument of employment status. Acceptance of compensation payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act serves as an election that prevents the employee from seeking other remedies, as established in Kelley v. Dupree. Since Davis accepted payments from Pataula's workmen's compensation carrier, she is barred from suing Pataula for Charlie's wrongful death under Alabama Code sections 25-5-52 and 25-5-53. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Pataula was thus correct. Regarding the summary judgment in favor of Dixon, Davis argued that Dixon had a duty to provide a safe working environment for Charlie and to warn him of potential dangers. However, it was undisputed that Charlie was not Dixon's employee but rather a business invitee. Landowners must maintain safe premises and warn invitees of hidden dangers, but they are not liable for injuries from dangers known or observable by the invitee. The only identified danger was the risk of logs falling from trucks during unloading, which was well-known in the logging industry. Charlie, being an experienced log truck driver with nearly five years at Pataula and extensive prior experience, was aware of this risk. Therefore, Dixon had no obligation to warn him. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Dixon was affirmed.