Background
A May 31, 2017 fire and explosion at Didion Milling’s corn-milling facility killed five employees and injured at least a dozen others. Family members of deceased workers and injured employees brought negligence claims against Didion Milling and its workers’ compensation insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.
After limited discovery on whether Wisconsin’s Workers’ Compensation Act supplied the exclusive remedy, the circuit court granted Didion summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued that the explosion was not an “accident” under the Act and that Nicholas Booker, who came from home to help rescue coworkers after hearing the explosion, was acting outside the course of his employment.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the explosion was an “accident” for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 102.03 because it was a fortuitous event unforeseen by the injured employees. Evidence that some employees believed an explosion might eventually occur did not show they expected this explosion, at its particular time and magnitude.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on cases concerning intentional employer conduct. That narrow exception concerns a sole proprietor directly and intentionally injuring an employee; the alleged safety failures and false regulatory information here involved actions by corporate agents and did not amount to Didion directly intending to cause the explosion. The court also held that Booker was performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment when he attempted to rescue coworkers, because his conduct furthered Didion’s duty to protect and rescue employees in an emergency. The court denied Didion’s request for frivolous-appeal sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- A workplace explosion can be an “accident” under Wisconsin workers’ compensation law even if employees had general concerns that an explosion might happen.
- The relevant expectation is the injured employee’s expectation of the event, including its timing and scope, not ordinary tort foreseeability.
- An off-duty employee injured while rescuing coworkers at a workplace emergency may still be acting in the course of employment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the breadth of Wisconsin’s workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy rule. Allegations that an employer maintained an unsafe workplace or knowingly disregarded safety risks generally do not permit a tort suit where the resulting event remains unforeseen by the employees.
It also confirms that the workers’ compensation course-of-employment inquiry extends beyond scheduled hours and assigned tasks when an employee responds to an emergency in service of the employer’s obligation to protect its workforce.