Trial News

An Illinois appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Monsanto Co. in a case involving the electrocution deaths of two teenage girls working on a corn farm but reversed summary judgment for the local electrical utility. The girls' estates and another girl who was injured had filed wrongful death and negligence claims, and the court found that Monsanto was immune because of its status as a joint employer under the state’s workers’ compensation law. (Kendall v. Monsanto Co., 2019 WL 464731 (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 5, 2019).)

In 2011, two teenage girls were killed and two other workers were injured on a corn farm after coming into contact with an irrigator that had become electrified after a lightning storm. The farm was owned by a couple and managed by a company operated by the couple’s son. Monsanto contracted with another company to recruit workers to perform detasseling—removing the tassels from the tops of corn stalks to help with pollination and cross-breeding—and the plaintiffs were working on the farm through this company. In the days leading up to the incident, a melted electrical meter box was found on the property in an area of burned grass after a storm. The box was deactivated, and the farm manager called an electrician. At the beginning of the next work week, the farm manager received a call from someone at Monsanto reporting that the girls had received electrical shocks in the field—two died and two were hospitalized.

The girls’ estates and the family of one of the injured workers filed wrongful death and negligence claims against the farm owners, the management companies, Monsanto, and the electrical utility Commonwealth Edison (ComEd). The plaintiffs alleged that Monsanto should have let the farm management company know when workers would be entering the field and should have ensured that there were no electrical hazards in the area.

The trial court granted Monsanto summary judgment, explaining that the company could not have reasonably foreseen what happened, that it had conducted adequate training on potential hazards, and that the farm manager should have known that the workers would be in the field that day based on the typical cycle of cutting and detasseling the corn. The trial court also found that even though evidence showed that Monsanto was a joint employer on the farm, the state workers’ comp act provided the exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs’ claims against Monsanto.

The court also dismissed claims against ComEd because the plaintiffs’ expert did not show that a genuine issue of fact existed about an industry standard to use surge protectors around an irrigator and that the lack of them in the cornfield caused the irrigator to become electrified. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to amend their expert’s report.

The appellate court recognized that Monsanto’s contract with the recruitment company provided workers’ comp coverage but affirmed the lower court’s ruling on different grounds. Instead of determining that workers’ comp was the exclusive remedy, the court concluded that Monsanto was immune from the claims under §5(a) of the worker’s comp act. The plaintiffs argued that Monsanto could not claim immunity under the workers’ comp act because it was not a joint employer with the recruitment company. But the court disagreed, finding that the detasselers’ job application carried Monsanto’s name and trademark, Monsanto directed the terms of the contract and had the authority to hire or fire workers, it provided training on safe work practices and protective equipment, and that it could stop the detasselers from working if it decided the conditions were dangerous. The court also considered that Monsanto handled processing the payroll and paid the workers’ comp benefits to the injured girls after the electrocution incident.

But the court reversed summary judgment for ComEd, finding that the trial court erred in excluding the plaintiffs’ expert opinion as not being grounded in facts. Instead, the expert should have been given the opportunity to amend his report to include citations to relevant standards.

Rock Falls, Ill., attorney Elizabeth Adams, who represented one of the estates, expressed disappointment that Monsanto was dismissed. “The appellate court’s ruling fails to address that relevant pre-incident documents, drafted by Monsanto, expressly disclaimed an employer-employee relationship with plaintiffs,” she said. “Under this ruling, Monsanto is able to elect employer status despite that express disclaimer.”