Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Pope County Circuit Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 11, 2014

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.; ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; AND DP ENGINEERING, LTD. CO. PETITIONERS
v.
POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT RESPONDENT JESS CLAYTON SEPARATE RESPONDENT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI; PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION.

Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC, by: Steven W. Quattleaum, John E. Tull III, and Michael N. Shannon; Davis, Clark, Butt, Carithers & Taylor, PLC, by: Constance G. Clark, Colin M. Johnson, and Kelly Carithers; and Munson, Rowlett, Moore and Boone, P.A., by: Bruce E. Munson, Elizabeth A. Fletcher, and Beverly D. Rowlett; and Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, by: Lawrence T. Bowman and Sanjay K. Minocha, for petitioners.

Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G. Brooks; Walas Law Firm, PLLC, by: Breean Walas; and Bailey & Oliver Law Firm, by: Sach D. Oliver, Frank H. Bailey, and T. Ryan Scott, for respondents.

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice. BAKER and HART, JJ., dissent. HART, J., joins in this dissent.

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice

Petitioners Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (" EAI" ); Entergy Operations, Inc. (" EOI" ) (collectively " Entergy" ); and DP Engineering, Ltd. Co. (" DP" ), petition this court for writs of prohibition directed to the respondent Pope County Circuit Court, which denied their motions to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff below, Jess Clayton.[1] Entergy and DP contend that the circuit court is precluded from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Clayton's claims against them because jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (" the Commission" ) to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Act. For the reasons set forth in Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Pope County Circuit Court, 2014 Ark. 509, 452 S.W.3d 81, delivered this same day, we grant the writs of prohibition.

The record in the instant case reflects that on September 19, 2013, Jess Clayton filed a personal-injury complaint in the circuit court.[2] The complaint alleged that on Easter Sunday, 2013, Clayton was working at Entergy's Arkansas Nuclear One (" ANO" ) facility near Russellville,

Page 198

when he was injured by a falling steel beam. Clayton asserted that he suffered multiple and massive physical injuries, including a broken back and leg, as well as severe cuts, scrapes, and contusions.

Clayton averred that he was an employee of Precision Surveillance Corporation (" PSC" ), " which was contracted by Entergy." Clayton claimed that prior to his injury, Entergy had decided to complete needed maintenance at its ANO facility that included the removal of the " Main Turbine Generator Stator," which weighed over a million pounds. Clayton stated that the stator required a crane to move it and that Entergy had hired Siemens " to help plan, execute, hire subcontractors, and provide other support" for the required maintenance. According to the complaint, Bigge was contracted as the crane provider, and DP was retained to " provide engineering advice as to the ability of the turbine building deck to support the weight of the crane and the stator." Clayton claimed that on the day of the accident, while the lift of the stator was in progress, he, along with others, was directed to remove a guardrail to facilitate the stator's move; just after doing so, the crane holding the stator buckled and crashed down, resulting in the crane's beams falling, one of which injured Clayton. Clayton alleged ordinary negligence, negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligent retention of an independent contractor on the part of Bigge, Siemens, DP, Entergy, and VEI Contractors, and he sought damages and punitive damages, declaratory relief, and a jury trial.

On October 30, Entergy moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to stay the proceedings. The basis for the motion was that both EAI and EOI were statutory employers, or alternatively special employers, of Clayton and were therefore immune from suit under Arkansas's workers' compensation laws. Entergy alternatively sought a stay of the action with direction to the parties to present the issue to the Commission, if the court determined that there was a factual issue preventing Entergy's dismissal. Attached to Entergy's motion were several exhibits consisting of multiple pages. Clayton responded to the motion, asserting that he was PSC's employee and that he was covered by workers' compensation insurance provided by PSC. Clayton claimed that neither EAI nor EOI could satisfy the requirements to be a statutory or special employer as a matter of law, and therefore, Entergy's motion to dismiss should be denied. Clayton later amended his response to include additional exhibits, and he filed a first amended complaint, incorporating by reference his original complaint and requesting damages for future pain and suffering. Entergy also filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, to stay the proceedings, incorporating by reference its prior motion, brief in support, and reply to Clayton's response.

DP similarly filed a motion to dismiss, in part, on December 18, 2013. It asserted that, in the event that Clayton was a statutory or special employee of Entergy at the time of his injury, DP's general employees, who were also onsite at ANO, were Entergy's special employees as well. DP claimed that its general employees were also protected as Clayton's co-employees by the exclusive-remedy provisions of Arkansas's workers' compensation laws, making them personally immune from liability. DP alleged that if its employees' personal liability was extinguished under the exclusive-remedy provision, so too was any vicarious liability that could be imputed to DP. DP further adopted and incorporated by reference the arguments, authorities, and exhibits relied on by Entergy, and sought dismissal of Clayton's ordinary-negligence

Page 199

claim or, alternatively, a stay of the proceedings pending review ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.