Tomlin v. Bush

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Tomlin v. Bush

460 So. 2d 1327, 1984 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1522

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

DocketCiv. 4564

StatusPublished

This text of 460 So. 2d 1327 (Tomlin v. Bush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tomlin v. Bush, 460 So. 2d 1327, 1984 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1522 (Ala. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Charles Tomlin was injured on October 16, 1979, while employed by Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Sales, Inc., at its plant on Pinto Island in Mobile, Alabama. In September of 1980, Tomlin filed suit in Mobile County Circuit Court against co-employee Bush for damages from negligent injury. His wife, Judy Catherine Tomlin, joined the suit as plaintiff, seeking damages for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs alleged among other things that Bush was acting in a managerial capacity at the Kaiser facility at the time of the injury and was responsible for furnishing a reasonably safe place to work and safe equipment with which to work.

On April 12, 1984, Bush filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the action against him was prohibited by 33 U.S.C. § 933(i) of the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Bush’s motion was granted and Tomlin appeals.

Tomlin contends the LHWCA is not an exclusive remedy and that his action is not barred by 33 U.S.C. § 933(i).

In Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala.1984), the Supreme Court of Alabama held that such an action is barred by 33 U.S.C. § 933(i) stating:

“We are of the opinion that the LHWCA and the law of Alabama [on worker’s compensation] are in serious conflict as to the maintenance of co-employee suits, and because that is the case, we hold that the federal law will preempt state law.” (Citations omitted.)

Our review indicates that the facts and issues presented in this case are identical with those presented in Fillinger, and were determined therein adversely to the plaintiffs in this case. We therefore consider Fillinger to be dispositive of this appeal. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. United States Steel Corp. v. Goodwin, 267 Ala. 612, 613, 104 So.2d 333, 334 (1958).

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

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

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Charles Tomlin was injured on October 16, 1979, while employed by Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Sales, Inc., at its plant on Pinto Island in Mobile, Alabama. In September of 1980, Tomlin filed suit in Mobile County Circuit Court against co-employee Bush for damages from negligent injury. His wife, Judy Catherine Tomlin, joined the suit as plaintiff, seeking damages for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs alleged among other things that Bush was acting in a managerial capacity at the Kaiser facility at the time of the injury and was responsible for furnishing a reasonably safe place to work and safe equipment with which to work.

On April 12, 1984, Bush filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the action against him was prohibited by 33 U.S.C. § 933(i) of the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Bush’s motion was granted and Tomlin appeals.

Tomlin contends the LHWCA is not an exclusive remedy and that his action is not barred by 33 U.S.C. § 933(i).

In Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala.1984), the Supreme Court of Alabama held that such an action is barred by 33 U.S.C. § 933(i) stating:

“We are of the opinion that the LHWCA and the law of Alabama [on worker’s compensation] are in serious conflict as to the maintenance of co-employee suits, and because that is the case, we hold that the federal law will preempt state law.” (Citations omitted.)

Our review indicates that the facts and issues presented in this case are identical with those presented in Fillinger, and were determined therein adversely to the plaintiffs in this case. We therefore consider Fillinger to be dispositive of this appeal. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. United States Steel Corp. v. Goodwin, 267 Ala. 612, 613, 104 So.2d 333, 334 (1958).

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 So. 2d 1327, 1984 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomlin-v-bush-alacivapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack