Case File
A worker’s death was due to safety lapses on the jobsite, but because his coworkers didn’t actually know of the peril. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.
Case
Estate of Griffith v. Kulper, No. 24-0097 (Iowa 02/06/26)
What Happened?
A worker died on the job after falling through an open catwalk gate into machinery owned by his employer. A post-accident inspection revealed that the pins required to secure the gate were missing.
The worker’s estate sued three of the worker’s co-employees, alleging that they were grossly negligent. The jury awarded the $2.84 million, and the co-employees appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, and the co-employees appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
In Iowa, although an employer is always immune from common law tort liability, an injured worker may maintain a common law tort action against a co-employee to recover for injuries only if the employe can establish that his injuries were caused by the co-employee’s gross negligence amounting to such lack of care as to amount to wanton neglect for the safety of another.
To recover tort damages beyond the workers’ compensation system’s death benefits, plaintiffs have to prove co-employees actually knew of the danger. Constructive knowledge, meaning proof that they should have known of the peril, is not enough.
Workers’ Comp 101: In Iowa, a showing of gross negligence requires a tort plaintiff to prove —
(1) Knowledge of the peril to be apprehended.
(2) Knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to possible, result of the danger.
(3) A conscious failure to avoid the peril.
What the Iowa Supreme Court Said
According to the Iowa Supreme Court, the estate’s co-employee gross negligence claims failed as a matter of law due to lack of evidence that the co-employees had the requisite actual knowledge of the specific peril that caused the worker’s death.
Because the co-employees testified that they did not know the pins were missing and that the gate was unsecured, and because the testimony was unrebutted, the estate failed to establish the requisite level of gross negligence to hold the co-employees liable in tort.
Instead, Iowa’s exclusive remedy doctrine applied.
The court relied on several precedent cases in reaching its decision:
Walker v. Mlakar, 489 N.W. 2d 401 (Iowa 1992). The Iowa Supreme Court “squarely” rejected the argument that a co-employee’s mere constructive knowledge of a condition may constitute knowledge of the peril to be apprehended.
Mehmedovic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 21 N.W. 3d 412 (Iowa 2025). Knowledge of the peril requires that the defendant actually knew of the peril or hazard. Constructive knowledge of the peril is insufficient to establish gross negligence.
Taylor v. Peck, 382 N.W. 2d 123 (Iowa 1986). A worker was injured by a machine whose safety features had been disabled. The worker’s direct supervisor was aware of the modifications to the machine, but there was no evidence that the general manager knew the safety features had been disabled.
Heinrich v. Lorenz, 448 N.W. 2d 327 (Iowa 1989). The worker failed to prove that the defendants had actual knowledge of the specific hazard that caused her injury. The court relied on the “low historical incidence of injuries on the butt skinner.”
Johnson v. Interstate Power Co., 481 N.W. 2d 310 (Iowa 1992). Without the co-employee’s actual knowledge of the specific peril that injured the employee, the gross negligence claims failed as a matter of law.
Swanson v. McGraw, 447 N.W. 2d 541 (Iowa 1989). Because the worker warned his supervisors that there was a hole in his protective rain suit and because the supervisors knew that caustic soap that the worker used to clean machinery could seep into the suit causing severe burns, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence on all three elements of gross negligence. The evidence showed that the defendants actually knew of the specific peril that harmed the worker.
Aiden v. Genie Industries, 475 N.W. 2d 1 (Iowa 1991). The employer’s actual knowledge of the peril was shown by his deposition testimony where he “freely admitted” that the operation of a manlift from the bed of a pickup without outriggers was “unsafe, even on a windless day.”
Verdict: The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision, reversed the District Court’s judgment, and remanded the case.
Takeaway
In Iowa, for an injured worker to bring a negligence action against co-employees, the worker must demonstrate the co-employees’ actual knowledge of the peril, not merely a failure to inspect that would have led to the peril’s discovery.
