Pratt v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Pamela Pratt (plaintiff) was a manual materials worker at Cersosimo Lumber Company (CLC) charged with lifting lumber repeatedly from pallets onto conveyor belts. CLC did not provide lift tables to help manual materials workers with the strenuous, repetitive task of lifting and moving lumber. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) (defendant) was CLC’s workers’-compensation insurer. Liberty had an active loss-prevention program designed to decrease workers’-compensation claims by promoting worker safety. As part of Liberty’s active loss-prevention program, Liberty conducted regular safety inspections of CLC’s facilities and made safety recommendations. CLC relied on Liberty’s loss-prevention and worker-safety expertise. During a safety inspection, Liberty noted that manual materials handling, such as lifting of lumber onto conveyor belts, was a major source of injury at CLC’s facilities; however, Liberty did not provide any safety recommendations to remediate that safety issue. Because of the cumulative effects of lifting heavy lumber, Pratt injured her back. Vermont’s workers’-compensation statute prohibited workers from bringing tort claims against employers for creating unsafe work environments. Pratt brought a negligence action against Liberty as CLC’s workers’-compensation insurer, arguing that Liberty was liable for her injuries because Liberty had undertaken an active loss-prevention program at CLC but discharged its duties under that program negligently, resulting in Pratt’s injuries. Pratt specifically argued that her injury could have been prevented if Liberty had recommended that CLC install lift tables after identifying manual materials handling as a major source of injury at CLC’s facilities. Liberty moved for a directed verdict, arguing that Pratt had failed to prove that Liberty’s alleged negligence was the proximate cause of her injury. The district court dismissed Pratt’s action. Pratt appealed.