Kirby v. Tennessee Valley Authority

877 F. Supp. 578, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20415, 1995 WL 77110
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama
DecidedFebruary 14, 1994
Docket3:93-cv-01057
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 877 F. Supp. 578 (Kirby v. Tennessee Valley Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kirby v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 877 F. Supp. 578, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20415, 1995 WL 77110 (N.D. Ala. 1994).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HALTOM, Senior District Judge.

The above-entitled civil action wherein Plaintiffs Vernon Kirby and Jamie Kirby [wife] seek to recover damages against the Defendant Tennessee Valley Authority [“TVA”] based on Plaintiff Vernon Kirby’s June 25, 1992 fall on the premises of TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant [“Browns Ferry”] in Limestone County, Alabama at a time when he was an employee of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Inc. [“Stone & Webster”] performing work for his employer on a TVA project in the ordinary course of that employment [Compl. Counts I-XII] is before the Court upon TVA’s Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., motion to dismiss incorporated in its Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint [Answer, first defense].

Counts I-XI, inclusive, of the complaint are asserted solely by Plaintiff Vernon Kirby. Count XII of the complaint is brought solely by Plaintiff Jamie Kirby, wife of Vernon Kirby, for loss of consortium and is premised upon the same fault theory of liability asserted herein by her husband against TVA.

In support of its 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in the above-entitled civil action TVA submits brief and argument *579 citing State of Alabama statutory authority that it can be held liable in this case for Plaintiff Vernon Kirby’s alleged injuries and for Plaintiff Jamie Kirby’s Count XII claim for loss of consortium only for willful conduct, which is not alleged by Plaintiffs in their complaint herein. Thus, argues TVA, the Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the reasons hereinafter set out this United States District Court agrees with TVA’s stated position.

ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

COUNT I

1. On or about June 25,1992, the Plaintiff, Vernon Kirby, was an employee of Stone & Webster, and on said date the Plaintiff was performing work and labor for said employer in the ordinary course of his employment on a project for Tennessee Valley Authority in Limestone County at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant in Athens, Alabama.
2. At such time and place, Tennessee Valley Authority and/or the fictitious Defendants were responsible for the supervision and inspection of the operations, equipment, safety precautions and premises involved in the work being done by the Plaintiff, and each of said Defendants had a duty to adopt and use methods and processes adequate to render the Plaintiffs employment reasonably safe and to do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, health and safety of the Plaintiff.
3. At such time and place or sometime prior thereto, said defendants negHgently and/or wantonly discharged their responsibiHties in reference to the supervision and inspection of the operations, equipment, safety equipment, safety precautions and premises involved with the Plaintiffs work and negHgently and/or wantonly failed to adopt and use methods and processes adequate to render Plaintiffs employment reasonably safe, and negHgently and/or wantonly failed to do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, health and safety of the Plaintiff by inter aHa:
(a) Failing to warn Plaintiff of known dangers;
(b) Failing to provide Plaintiff with proper safeguards, safety apparatus, safety equipment or procedures;
(c) Providing faulty or defective safety equipment or safety handrails or stairways for the work being performed by the Plaintiff;
(d) Failing to provide Plaintiff with a safe work place pursuant to Code of Alabama § 25-1-1.
4. As a proximate consequence of the Defendant’s said neghgence and/or wantonness, the Plaintiff suffered the foHowing injuries and damages when a series of steps of uneven length and height in a defective condition safety handrail caused the Plaintiff to faU. [Remainder of ¶4 omitted].

COUNT II

1. On or about June 25,1992, the Plaintiff, Vernon Kirby, was an employee of Stone & Webster, and on said date the Plaintiff was performing work and labor for said employer in the ordinary course of his employment on a project for Tennessee Valley Authority in Limestone County at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant in Athens, Alabama.
2. At such time and place, Tennessee Valley Authority and/or the fictitious Defendants were responsible for the supervision and inspection of the operations, equipment, safety precautions and premises involved in the work being done by the Plaintiff, and each of said Defendants had a duty to adopt and use methods and processes adequate to render the Plaintiffs employment reasonably safe and to do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, health and safety of the Plaintiff.
3. At such time and place or sometime prior thereto, said defendants negHgently and/or wantonly discharged their responsibiHties in reference to the supervision and inspection of the operations, equipment, safety equipment, safety precautions and *580 premises involved with the Plaintiff’s work and negligently and/or wantonly failed to adopt and use methods and processes adequate to render Plaintiffs employment reasonably safe, and negligently and/or wantonly failed to do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, health and safety of the Plaintiff by inter alia:
(a) Failing to warn Plaintiff of known dangers;
(b) Failing to provide Plaintiff with proper safeguards, safety apparatus, safety equipment or procedures;
(e) Providing faulty or defective safety equipment or safety handrails or stairways for the work being performed by the Plaintiff;
(d) Failing to provide Plaintiff with a safe work place pursuant to Code of Alabama § 25-1-1.
4. As a proximate consequence of the Defendant’s said negligence and/or wantonness, the Plaintiff suffered the following injuries and damages when a series of steps of uneven length and height in a defective condition safety handrail caused the Plaintiff to fall. [Remainder of ¶4 omitted].
5. Plaintiff avers that one or more of the named and/or fictitious Defendants undertook to make inspections and/or had the duty to make inspections of the work area and/or stairways wherein the Plaintiff was performing the aforesaid work. Further, said Defendants had a duty and/or voluntarily undertook to provide Plaintiff with a safe place to work.
6. Plaintiff avers that said Defendants negligently and/or wantonly inspected and/or failed to inspect said are and/or stairways with regard to safety. Plaintiff further avers that said Defendants had a duty and/or voluntarily undertook to provide Plaintiff with a safe place to work and negligently and/or wantonly failed to provide a safe work environment.

CO UNT III

1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hall v. United States
N.D. Alabama, 2021
Daniel Young v. Tennessee Valley Authority
439 F.3d 1274 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
877 F. Supp. 578, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20415, 1995 WL 77110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirby-v-tennessee-valley-authority-alnd-1994.