قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The parent company is not responsible for the subsidiary's death

The parent company is not responsible for the subsidiary's death



One end of a man killed by a crane failed to show that his employer's parent company was negligible for his death. A federal court decided. Grimsley v. Manitowoc Co. Inc. . , the US District Court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday granted summary judgment to the husband's employer, Grove US LLC in Shady Grove, Pennsylvania, along with the parent company Manitowoc Co., based in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, and several other subsidiaries after holding that Grove was entitled to the exclusive legal action under the Workers Compensation Act and Manitowoc did not exercise any significant control over Grove to establish liability.

In 2013, the worker died at a Shady Grove workplace when he was attached between two cranes. After an investigation of accidents in the United States occupational safety and health service, fines were fined and the employee's widow received workers' compensation death benefits.

In 201

5, she filed an illegal death and survival action claiming negligence and strict liability. She argued that Manitowoc was her husband's employer and that since the parent company received workers from Grove, the parent company was not immune to a trial. The companies moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court.

Although the court noted that documents submitted by the employee's insurance insurer showed some obvious confusion on his part by noting Grove with Manitowoc's federal employer identification number with his claim filed with the state employment agency, the court noted that the insurer later changed the deceased worker's employer to Grove US LLC and changed FEIN.

The widow claimed that Manitowoc exercised control over his husband and claimed that the crane was owned by Manitowoc and was marked with his logo. However, the court argued that nothing in the record showed that Manitowoc represented himself as the man's employer instead of Grove. The court noted that immaculate testimony suggests that Grove, not Manitowoc, owned the cranes, and that even though the cranes and manuals were marked by the Manitowoc logo, she failed to show that Manitowoc exercised a control level that goes beyond the normal parent company's subsidiary control obligation to provide an safe environment for the deceased worker.

The companies concerned could not be reached for comment.

                    


Source link