Driver Doesn't Face Tort Liability for Running Over Coworker with Concrete Truck

Cheyenne, WY (WorkersCompensation.com) -- When someone gets run over by a large truck, it’s natural to wonder, “Why did the driver not see him?” 

In Lovato v. Case, 2022 WY 151 (Dec. 1, 2022), Wyoming’s top court had to address whether the answer to that question was because a driver meant to. 

On a jobsite, a foreman directed a concrete truck driver to a location on the site for a pour. While driving to that spot, the driver ran over a worker who walked in front of the truck. As he drove, the driver felt a bump and thought he had hit a curb or a concrete form with the truck. 

Due to getting run over, the worker injured his foot, leg, back, and shoulder. The driver reported that he didn’t see the worker but also admitted to using his cell phone to call the concrete plant and possibly his girlfriend around the time of the accident. 

The worker received benefits for his injuries through the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act, and then sued the driver, claiming that the driver was liable for “reckless, willful, wanton, and/or reprehensible conduct.” 

The district court granted the driver’s motion for summary judgment, agreeing with the driver that he was immune from civil liability because actions were not willful and wanton. The worker appealed. 

Under Wyoming law, co-employees are generally immunized from liability for ordinary negligence when it comes to work-related injuries when they are acting within the scope of their employment unless a co-employee intentionally acts to cause physical harm or injury to the injured employee. 

The Wyoming Supreme Court explained that the driver did not intentionally run over the worker. The court pointed out that the only evidence in the case that the driver intended to run over the worker was the worker’s speculation that the driver “may have harbored a secret intent to run him over.” 

“How does this dude hit someone that’s six foot?” the worker testified. “I don’t know, but we’re here.” 

That question, in the court’s view, wasn’t enough to make the case that the driver intentionally ran over the worker. 

So, what about the distracted driving issue?  

The court explained that while the driver wasn’t being safe, it didn’t mean he intentionally hit the worker. 

“[The driver] violated industry standards for safely operating a commercial motor vehicle by failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and maintain a safe distance between the vehicle and pedestrians … [and he] failed to clear the area before he started moving by getting out of the truck and looking around or signaling his intent to move by honking the horn, flashing the lights, or yelling,” the court posited. “Violations of safety standards ‘may constitute evidence of ordinary negligence’; however, ‘they do not demonstrate a state of mind consistent with’ co-employee liability, ‘which requires knowledge or obviousness of a high probability of harm.’ 

The court also pointed out that: 1) the driver followed a foreman’s hand signals; and 2) the driver drove slowly to the location of the next pour. 

The court concluded that the lower court was right to decide that the worker did not present evidence to show that the driver “knew his actions presented a serious risk … or it was highly probable harm would result if he disregarded the risk.” 

Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling in the driver’s favor. 

Stay current on Wyoming and all 53 U.S. jurisdictions with a subscription to WorkCompResearch