# Curt Peters and Cheri Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., and Patrick Terrio

> Supreme Court of Missouri · June 7, 2016 · 489 S.W.3d 784

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823873

## Case

- **Full name:** Curt PETERS and Cheri Peters, Appellants, v. WADY INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, and Patrick Terrio, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** June 7, 2016
- **Citations:** 489 S.W.3d 784; 2016 Mo. LEXIS 189
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fischer
- **Judges:** Chief Justice Patricia Breckenridge
- **Cited by:** 77 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823873

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the employer has a “nondelegable duty to provide a safe work environment, and it breaches that duty where it charged an employee with the responsibility to provide a reasonably safe work environment but the employee did not so provide” (citation omitted)
- holding that the scope of the employer’s non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace included an unsafe manner of work performance where the unsafe manner, through employer acceptance, had become “standard operating procedure[].”
- noting that, whether a statute is “liberally or strictly construed,” courts “cannot add words to a statute under the auspice of statutory construction”
- explaining that the “rule[] of . . . strict construction” applies “only when a statute is ambiguous”
- discussing effect of Section 287.800 on co-employee liability under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law

## Opinion text

OPINION CONCURRING IN RESULT
Zel M. Fischer, Judge
I concur with the result reached in the principal opinion, but would overrule the *801 court of appeals’ decision in Leeper v. Asmus, 440 S.W.3d 478 (Mo.App. 2014), and continue to apply the “something more” test consistent with its well-established meaning in this Court. That is, “[a]n employee may sue a fellow employee only for affirmative negligent acts outside the scope of an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe : workplace.” Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen’s Mut. Ins. Co., 461 S.W.3d 788, 794 (Mo. banc 2015) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added). However; as - recognized by the principal opinion, its'holding relevant to the “something more” test is limited to a finite number of cases as it' applies only to cases arising prior to the 2012 amendment to § 287.120.1, an amendment that effectively codified the “something more” test as previously applied by this Court. -Because § 287.120.1 governs co-employee liability cases now and going forward, I decline to fully expound upon the differences I have with the principal opinion. ■

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823873. Public record. Not legal advice.