## Facts

- Crookham Company is a wholesale seed distributor in Caldwell, Idaho.
- Francisca Gomez worked for Crookham for more than 30 years.
- In early 2015, Crookham decided it needed a new seed-sorting “picking table” to sort seeds more efficiently, and a Crookham employee fabricated and installed the new table in late 2015.
- The picking table included a rotating drive shaft that was not fully guarded.
- Before the 2016 accident, OSHA had cited Crookham for machine-guarding and lockout/tagout violations involving prior picking tables.
- Crookham did not consistently perform required lockout/tagout procedures while employees cleaned the picking table.
- On January 20, 2016, while Ms. Gomez was assigned to work in the “Scancore” room, she was underneath the picking table cleaning when the exposed drive shaft caught her hair and pulled her into the machine, causing fatal injuries.
- OSHA investigated after the death and issued “serious” violations based on employee exposure to the unguarded drive shaft and the absence of lockout/tagout procedures.
- Ms. Gomez’s family received workers’ compensation death benefits.
- The family also filed a wrongful-death action asserting multiple theories, including negligence/negligence per se, strict liability and failure-to-warn product claims, breach of warranty, and wrongful death.
- Crookham moved for summary judgment on the ground that Idaho’s workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy rule barred all civil claims.
- The family argued the Idaho Code § 72-209(3) exception for “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” applied because Crookham knowingly exposed employees to a deadly hazard; they relied on prior OSHA history and presented expert testimony characterizing Crookham’s conduct as intentional, reckless, and negligent.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Crookham, ruling (among other things) that exclusivity barred the claims, the § 72-209(3) exception did not apply, Ms. Gomez was acting in the course of employment, and Crookham was not a “manufacturer” for product-liability purposes.

## Issues

1. Do Idaho Code §§ 72-209(1) and 72-211 together establish an exclusive-remedy rule that bars the survivors’ wrongful-death and related civil claims arising from a compensable workplace death?
2. Did the district court err in rejecting the Idaho Code § 72-209(3) “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception without addressing whether Crookham consciously disregarded knowledge that the unguarded equipment created a serious risk of harm?
3. Was Ms. Gomez acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the fatal accident?
4. Is an employer that fabricated equipment for its own internal use (and did not produce it for trade or commerce) a “manufacturer” subject to product-liability claims under Idaho law?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court held that Idaho Code §§ 72-209(1) and 72-211 operate together as Idaho’s workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy rule and generally bar civil claims for work-related injury or death covered by workers’ compensation.
- The Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Ms. Gomez was acting within the course and scope of employment when the accident occurred.
- The Court affirmed summary judgment against the family’s product-liability theories because Crookham was not a “manufacturer” under Idaho’s product-liability framework where the picking table was fabricated for internal use and not produced for trade or commerce.
- The Court reversed the blanket summary judgment to the extent the district court failed to consider whether Crookham “consciously disregarded knowledge” that the equipment posed a significant risk to Ms. Gomez, a fact-dependent inquiry tied to whether the § 72-209(3) exception could apply.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the § 72-209(3) exception question.

## Legal Principles

- Idaho’s workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy rule is read from Idaho Code §§ 72-209(1) and 72-211 together; when an injury or death is compensable under the Act, the employer’s liability is generally limited to workers’ compensation, barring tort and wrongful-death suits by the employee or survivors.
- The Idaho Code § 72-209(3) exception for “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” is not resolved solely by labeling conduct as unsafe; the court must evaluate whether the record supports a finding that the employer consciously disregarded knowledge of a serious risk to the employee, which may create a triable fact question.
- For workers’ compensation exclusivity to apply, the injury must arise out of and in the course of employment; performing assigned work duties on the employer’s premises during work satisfies that requirement.
- Product-liability claims requiring “manufacturer” status fail where the defendant fabricated equipment only for its own use and did not produce or place the item into trade or commerce as a product.

## Conclusion

Because Ms. Gomez’s death occurred in the course of her employment and was compensable under workers’ compensation, Idaho’s exclusive-remedy rule generally barred her family’s civil claims, and Crookham was not liable under product-liability theories as a “manufacturer” for in-house equipment; however, the Idaho Supreme Court remanded for the district court to address whether evidence that Crookham consciously disregarded knowledge of a serious risk could bring the case within the Idaho Code § 72-209(3) exception for “willful or unprovoked physical aggression.”


Gomez v. Crookham Co., 457 P.3d 901 (2020)