Saharceski v. Marcure (1977)

Saharceski v. Marcure, Mass., 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1246 (1977).

The precise question before us is whether the act bars an action against a fellow employee who commits an intentional tort which was in no way within the scope of employment furthering the interests of the employer. [4] We have stated that "an employee injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of a fellow employee may not recover from that fellow employee if he also was acting in the course of his employment." Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977),…

First we state that the coemployee immunity rule under G.L.c. 152 involves the same "course of employment" standard that determines whether an employee is acting in the course of employment and thus is entitled workers' compensation. [2] Compensation is available, pursuant to G.L.c. 152, *410 § 26 (1992 ed.), to an employee (who has not preserved his common law rights) who receives a personal injury "arising out of and in the course of his employment." If "compensation benef…

In Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304 , 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (1977), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that where an employment contract is made in Massachusetts, and an employee is covered under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, third-party claims against the employer are precluded even where an injury occurs in a different state.

L. c. 152, an employee injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of a fellow employee may not recover from that fellow employee if he was also acting in the course of his employment.” Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977). 1.

Saharceski v. Mancure, 373 Mass. 304, 309-10 , 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1248 (1977) (finding that, when plaintiff was hired and lived in Massachusetts and was barred by the Massachusetts workers’ compensation law from recovering in tort, plaintiff had no reasonable basis to expect to recover against a co-worker under Connecticut law, and defendant had no reasonable basis to expect he would be liable); Frassa v. Caulfield, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 105, 108 , 491 N.E.2d 657, 659 (1986).

As was said in Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 311-312 (1977), we agree that the “elimination of happenstance, a sort of unknowing geographical Russian roulette, as the controlling factor is particularly significant” in a case such as this, where the basis for initiating a stop of the defendant, and all but a few feet of his subsequent travel before stopping occurred within the officer’s jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION Simpson moves for summary judgment on the three counts in the amended complaint directed against him, namely Counts I, XI and XII, on the ground that the action is barred by the workers’ compensation rule of co-employees’ immunity: “Where compensation benefits are available under G.L.c. 152, an employee injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of a fellow employee may not recover from that fellow employee if [the fellow employee] was also acting i…

“In this Commonwealth, where compensation benefits are available under G.L.c. 152, an employee injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of a fellow employee may not recover from that fellow employee if he also was acting in the course of his employment.” Saharceski v. Marcare, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977), citing Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633, 635 (1945).

O’Connell , 400 Mass, at 690 quoting Saharceski v. Marcare, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977), citing Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633, 635 (1945).

It is true that the location of the alleged fraud by Mr. Schmid in New York is not “purely adventitious,” see Reisch v. McGuigan, 745 F.Supp. 56, 62 (D.Mass.1990), or mere “happenstance,” see Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 311-12 , 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1249 (Mass.1977).

See id. at 832-33 (employing all three approaches); Quiles v. Heflin Steel Supply Co., 145 Ariz. 73, 77 , 699 P.2d 1304, 1308 (App.1985) (applying law of state where compensation was sought and all parties resided); Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304 , 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1248-49 (1977) (using hybrid approach); Braxton v. Anco Elec., Inc., 100 N.C.App. 635 , 397 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1990) (holding forum state’s interests and public policy require application of its law where all …

L. c. 152, an employee injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of a fellow employee may not recover from that fellow employee if [the fellow employee] was also acting in the course of his employment.” Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977).

See, e.g., Cohen v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 389 Mass. 327, 333 , 450 N.E.2d 581, 585 (1983); Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 310-11 , 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1249 (1977); Pevoski v. Pevoski, 371 Mass. 358, 360 , 358 N.E.2d 416, 417 (1976).

See Comeau v. Hebert, 352 Mass. 634, 635 (1967); Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977); Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 381 Mass. 545, 547-550 (1980); Simmons v. Merchants Mut.

Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977).

L. c. 152, § 15, as amended by St. 1971, c. 941, § 1; Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306-307 (1977); Roy v. Star Chopper Co., 584 F.2d 1124, 1130-1131 (1st Cir. 1978); Locke, Workmen’s Compensation § 652 (2d ed. 1981).

Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306-307 (1977).

In Pevoski v. Pevoski, 371 Mass. 358, 360 (1976), we stated, however, that “on the particular facts of a case another jurisdiction may sometimes be more concerned and more involved with certain issues . . . .” See Choate, Hall & Stewart v. SCA Servs., Inc., 378 Mass. 535, 541 (1979); Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 310-311 (1977).

Id. at 1248, 1249 n. 6, and 1250.

Under these conditions, "the ability to maintain a tort action [should] not turn solely on the fortuitous circumstance of *225 where the accident takes place.” Saharceski v. Marcure, 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1249 (Mass.1977).

Corp., 347 Mass. 613 , 624 n.12 (1964); Pevoski v. Pevoski, 371 *493 Mass. 358, 359-360 (1976); Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 309-310 (1977), and we proceed on that basis.

In recent cases, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has looked cautiously also to “the established relationship of the parties, their expectations, and the degree of interest of each jurisdiction whose law might be applied.” Saharce-ski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304 , 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1248 (1977).

See Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304 , 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1248 (1977).

Laws ch. 152, § 15 (1988) 11 ; see also Saharceski v. Marcure , 373 Mass. 304 , 307 , CT Page 941 366 N.E.2d 1245 (1977) ("[A]n employee covered under the [Massachusetts Workmen's Compensation Act] must look solely to his employer's compensation insurer (and any independent third-party tortfeasor) when he is injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of a fellow employee who is also acting in the course of his employment and that it makes no difference that th…

“Although the rightness or wrongness of [the] defendant’s conduct may depend upon the law of the particular jurisdiction through which the automobile passes, the rights and liabilities of the parties which stem from their guest-host relationship should remain constant and not vary and shift as the automobile proceeds from place to place.” Babcock, 12 N.Y.2d at 483 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 743 , 191 N.E.2d 279 (declining to apply Ontario guest statute to action involving New York passe…

See also O’Connell v. Chasdi, 400 Mass. at 689 n.3 (citing choice-of-law precedent, Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 310-312 [1977], in support of the observation that the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act may provide the plaintiff with a remedy for the defendant’s out-of-State conduct).

See Sahaeceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 311 (1977) (Massachusetts law governed issue of whether workers’ compensation barred claim against fellow employee, where accident occurred in Connecticut and where plaintiff and defendant were both hired and lived in Massachusetts).

See Saharceski v. Marcure, 366 N.E.2d 1245, 1248 (Mass. 1977).

See Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 309 (1977).

See Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304 , 307 & n. 1 & 3 (1977); Mendes v. Tin Kee Ng, 400 Mass. 131, 134 (1987); Frassa v. Caulfield, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 105, 108-110 (1986).

See Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306 (1977).

See also Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304 (1977) (applying Massachusetts’ Workers’ compensation law barring recovery between fellow employees for injuries sustained in a Connecticut accident).