SD Supreme Court Stresses Fault and Negligence Have No Role in Workers’ Comp Disputes

Cautioning that the analysis of the case by the state’s Department of Labor had come “perilously close to the prohibited concept of contributory negligence or fault,” the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed an award of death benefits to the widow of a municipal employee, following his death in a work-related trench collapse [Bonebright v. City of Miller, 2020 SD 16, 2020 SD LEXIS 28 (Mar. 18, 2020)]. The Court observed that the Department had agreed with the employer and its insurer that the employee, who was generally responsible for safety at the trench site, committed willful misconduct when he descended into an unsloped and unguarded trench. Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the Court added that while the Department had awarded benefits, based on its determination that the deceased employee’s misconduct was not the proximate cause of his death, it had improperly allowed the introduction of fault into the case.

Background

Bonebright served as superintendent of the city’s water department and as such, he was charged with overseeing safety at his department’s trench sites. The city’s safety rules required employees to secure a trench deeper than 48 inches either by using the city’s trench box or through a process of sloping the sides of the trench. The city had purchased its trench box in the late 1990s at Bonebright’s request after a previous trench collapse during which he and another employee narrowly averted injury. It contended that on the date of the fatal incident, Bonebright decided to leave the trench unsecured in violation of the city’s safety rules, and that Bonebright’s decision to enter the unsloped and unsecured trench constituted willful misconduct.

Procedural Aspects of the Case

Following Bonebright’s death, the city and the South Dakota Municipal League Workers’ Compensation Fund denied liability on grounds that he had engaged in willful misconduct. The Department of Labor agreed, although it awarded benefits to Bonebright’s widow after concluding his alleged willful misconduct was not a proximate cause of his death. The circuit court affirmed the Department’s decision to award benefits, but did so because it determined that Bonebright had not engaged in willful misconduct. The employer appealed.

Supreme Court: City Had Not Enforced Safety Rules

Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 35.01, the Court stressed that willful misconduct contemplated the intentional doing of something with the knowledge that it is likely to result in serious injuries, or with reckless disregard of its probable consequences. In the cases cited by the city (and the Department), the employer had actively enforced its safety rules and terminated employees for failure to abide by them. In the instant case, the opposite was true. The undisputed facts contained in the record demonstrated that the city did not enforce its safety rules for trenches. On the date of the accident, several city officials were even present at the site and would have seen that there was no trench guard on the site.

In as much as the city had not demonstrated bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, it could not argue the deceased employee had engaged in willful misconduct.