Blake v. Big B, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Hallmark v. Duke

    624 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 1993)   Cited 8 times
    In Hallmark v. Duke, 624 So.2d 1058 (Ala.1993), the supreme court held that, assuming certain lids and valves on a machine could be considered safety devices, the defendant co-employees could not be liable under § 25–5–11(c)(2) when those devices had not been bypassed to prevent their proper functioning and remained fully operational at the time of the accident; they simply had not been used by the defendant co-employees.

    We first address the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in dismissing the negligence claim against the five co-employee defendants and in refusing to declare invalid Act 85-41, Ala. Acts 1985 (the 1985 amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act). This Court held adversely to the plaintiffs' position in the recent case of Jones v. Lowe, 611 So.2d 345 (Ala. 1992); therefore, the dismissal of the negligence claim is affirmed. See, also, Blake v. Big B, Inc., 613 So.2d 1265 (Ala. 1993). The plaintiffs' remaining claims against these defendants are based on § 25-5-11(b) and (c)(2), which provide, in pertinent part, as follows:

  2. Rickard v. Shoals Distributing, Inc.

    619 So. 2d 1387 (Ala. 1993)

    Rickard appeals. We reverse and remand on the authority of Blake v. Big B, Inc., 613 So.2d 1265 (Ala. 1993), and Jones v. Lowe, 611 So.2d 345 (Ala. 1992). REVERSED AND REMANDED.