Streeter v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist. ( 2019 )

Streeter v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., No. 111-2-18 Cncv (Toor, J., Aug. 23, 2019).
[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the
accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]
STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Chittenden Unit Docket No. 111-2-18 Cncv
Streeter et al vs. Chittenden Solid Waste et al
ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Negligence (111-2-18 Cncv)
Title: Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion 3)
Filer: Chittenden Solid Waste District
Attorney: Rodney E. McPhee
Filed Date: June 3, 2019
Response filed on 07/16/2019 by Attorney Cristina Rousseau for Plaintiffs
Plaintiff's Opposition;
Response filed on 08/05/2019 by Attorney Rodney E. McPhee for Defendant CSWD
CSWD's Reply;
This case involves a serious injury to plaintiff Harold Streeter while he was working
at the Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD). He sues the CSWD, a co-worker, and the
company that manufactured and designed the machine that caused the injury. His wife
sues for lack of consortium. The CSWD moves for summary judgment on two grounds:
the lack of a duty to Streeter, and the “statutory employer” doctrine of worker’s
compensation law.
Procedural Issue
Plaintiffs argue that they cannot provide facts to dispute certain matters because
they have not yet completed discovery. They ask the court to delay ruling on the motion
for this reason. See Opposition at 11-13. However, Rule 56 has a very specific requirement
for supporting such a request, and Plaintiffs have not met that. V.R.C.P. 56(d). No
affidavit has been filed. Nor have Plaintiffs explained precisely what discovery they need
that they have been unable to obtain. The scheduling order issued in this case over a year
ago has an August 1 deadline for all discovery, which has now passed, and a September 1
trial-ready date. The scheduling order has never been extended. On this record, the court
declines to delay ruling on the motion.
Undisputed Facts
In sum, the relevant undisputed facts are as follows.1 Harold Streeter was an
employee of Casella Waste Systems. He was seriously injured in 2015 while so employed
and working at the CSWD’s Williston recycling facility (the Materials Handling Facility,
or “the Facility”). CSWD is a municipal entity created by the State of Vermont to manage
the solid waste generated in Chittenden County. Casella, which is also in the waste
management business, was hired by CSWD to operate and maintain the Facility. By
contract, Casella had complete control of the operation and maintenance of the Facility,
including all equipment maintenance. CSWD did not exercise supervisory control over
Casella’s operations or its means and methods. It did contract to pay for reasonable costs
of repair and non-routine maintenance.
The recycling equipment in question was manufactured and designed by defendant
Machinex. It was installed in the Facility in 2014. Streeter alleges that his injuries resulted
from safety features of the equipment—a light and an alarm to indicate a belt was
moving—having been disabled by a fire, and not having been fixed or replaced while
1
Where Plaintiffs have not provided any record support for their opposition to CSWD’s facts, the court
deems the facts undisputed. V.R.C.P. 56(e)(2).
2
repairs were being made by Machinex. There are no allegations that CSWD did anything
to disable the safety features or knew that they had been disabled.
The contract also provided that Casella would obtain liability insurance and
worker’s compensation insurance for the Facility. Streeter is receiving worker’s
compensation benefits through Casella’s worker’s compensation insurance.
Additional Facts Alleged by Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs allege several additional facts to which they point in their arguments.
They allege that CSWD approved the design of the Machinex equipment, that Casella had
no role in the design, manufacturing or installation of the equipment, and that CSWD had
the power to purchase and lease real and personal property in connection with the
management of solid waste.
Conclusions of Law
CSWD raises two legal arguments. The court addresses only the second one ,
because it is dispositive. CSWD argues that it is what is termed a “statutory employer”
under the worker’s compensation law. That term includes “the owner or lessee of
premises or other person who is virtually the proprietor or operator of the business there
carried on, but who, by reason of there being an independent contractor or for any other
reason, is not the direct employer of the workers there employed.” 21 V.S.A. § 601(3). The
statute was “intended to impose liability for workers’ compensation benefits upon
business owners who hire independent contractors to carry out some phase of their
business.” Edson v. State, 2003 VT 32, ¶ 6, 175 Vt. 330. A statutory employer is protected
from liability outside the worker’s compensation regime. 21 V.S.A. § 622.
The “critical inquiry” is “whether the type of work being carried out by the
independent contractor is the type of work that could have been carried out by the owner’s
3
employees as part of the regular course of their business.” Edson, 2003 VT 32, ¶ 7. “Put
another way, the question is whether the work that the owner contracted for is a part of,
or process in, the trade, business or occupation of the owner.” Id. (quotation and citation
omitted). So, for example, a creamery that hired a contractor to construct a building at
the creamery was not a statutory employer because the creamery business did not include
constructing buildings; the Vermont Department of Liquor Control was a statutory
employer when it hired a trucking firm to load and deliver liquor because its business
included distribution of liquor. Compare Packett v. Moretown Creamery Co., 91 Vt. 97(1917), with Edson, 2003 VT 32.
CSWD hired Casella to do the work it was responsible for by law: managing
Chittenden County waste. The work Casella was contracted to do was precisely the work
CSWD does. “[I]t is plain that plaintiff was injured while engaged in the [CSWD]’s
business” of managing solid waste in Chittenden County. Edson, 2003 VT 32, ¶ 9. CSWD
was therefore a statutory employer.
Plaintiffs argue that the “dual capacity doctrine” creates a basis for CSWD’s liability
here. That doctrine can override the immunity from suit “if the employer’s liability to the
victim arises from actions taken in a nonemployer capacity.” Colwell v. Allstate Insurance
Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶ 25, 175 Vt. 61. Plaintiffs assert that their claim is based not on CSWD’s
business of managing waste, but its business of “designing and leasing recycling
equipment and facilities.” Opp. at 9. They argue that “the only relationship giving rise to
liability is that of an owner and lessor of machinery, a role unrelated to CSWD’s status as
Plaintiff’s statutory employer . . .” Id. The court is unpersuaded. The design and ownership
of the machinery is not separate from the business of waste management, it is part and
parcel of the business. The employer’s legal duty to provide a safe workplace is part of
4
being the employer. 21 V.S.A. § 223(a). “Neglect of safety precautions . . . is a breach of
the employer’s duty.” Dunham v. Chase, 165 Vt. 543, 544 (1996)(mem.). There is no
separate role here that creates liability independent of the worker’s compensation regime.
Order
CSWD’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Dated at Burlington this 21st day of August, 2019.
___________________
Helen M. Toor
Superior Court Judge
Notifications:
Cristina Rousseau (ERN 1849), Attorney for Plaintiff Harold Streeter
Cristina Rousseau (ERN 1849), Attorney for Plaintiff Melissa Streeter
Rodney E. McPhee (ERN 3612), Attorney for Defendant Chittenden Solid Waste
Rodney E. McPhee (ERN 3612), Attorney for Defendant Chris Baker
Bonnie J. Badgewick (ERN 1207), Attorney for Defendant Machinex Technologies, Inc.
Philip C. Woodward (ERN 2854), Attorney for party 3 Co-Counsel
vtadsbat
5