Nevada Employers Are Not Immunized from Suit for Indemnity by Power Company, but Scope of Power Company's Idemnity Rights Is Limited by Court's Statutory Interpretation
内华达州最高法院裁定，电力公司可依据架空电线法规向受伤员工的雇主追偿，但本案中因事故涉及地面电线而非架空电线，追偿被驳回。
Nevada Power Co. v. Haggerty, 989 P 2d 870 (Nevada Supreme Court-December 13,1999) A Nevada statute provides that a power company subject to a personal injury judgment may seek indemnity from other tortfeasors contributing to the injury. Does the power company's right of indemnity extend even to indemnity claims against the injured plaintiff's employer, an entity normally exempt from employee claims under state workers compensation law? The Nevada Supreme Court recently answered the question in the affirmative. However, the court refused to permit the power company to sue the employer for indemnity in the particular case in question because the statutory right of indemnity applied only where the incident involved power lines rather than the ground-level power lines that were the source of the injury-causing electricity. Raymond Haggerty was a maintenance engineer employee of the Horseshoe Club, a casino in downtown Las Vegas. While working, Haggerty entered a room in the basement of the Horseshoe that contained electrical equipment. The vault that normally secured high-voltage power lines in the room was unlocked, permitting Haggerty to enter the vault to inspect a vent. While Haggerty was in the vault, his shoulder came in contact with high-voltage equipment owned by Nevada Power. Haggerty suffered substantial injuries. Although precluded from suing the Horseshoe, Haggerty sued Nevada Power for alleged negligence. Nevada Power then filed a third-party complaint to seek indemnity from the Horseshoe on the ground that the employer's negligent maintenance of the area was a substantial factor contributing to the Haggerty injury. In particular, Nevada Power alleged that it should have been informed of employee access and the padlock on the vault should not have been removed, allegedly by the employer. Nevada Revised Statutes Sections 455.200 through 455.250 provide that a person working in the vicinity of high-voltage overhead power lines must notify the power company before commencing the work. Where failure to follow the statute results in injuries and claims against the power company, the power company may sue for indemnity against the party that failed to notify the utility Nevada Power sought to use this statute to force Horseshoe to share in any judgment Haggerty might obtain. In addition, Haggerty had applied for and received workers compensation benefits from Horseshoe pursuant to the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act (NIIA), the state's workers compensation law. Horseshoe argued that the power company's indemnity claim should be barred as a matter of law under NIIA, which (like workers compensation laws generally) provides employer immunity against tort litigation as the quid pro quo for the employer's strict liability for workplace injuries under the workers compensation law. (Under workers compensation principles, the fault of both employer and employee is immaterial, and the amounts payable to the employee are determined by a schedule of benefits rather than by ad hoc jury awards.) The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed with Horseshoe's assertion of immunity, essentially deciding that the indemnity provisions of the overhead power line statute overrode the immunity provisions of the workers compensation law. Horseshoe had argued that this was contrary to the legislature's intent in passing these laws. The court found no particular evidence of legislative intent on this point ([t]here is no legislative history in Nevada to support either position) and instead decided the case reasoning from the structure and purpose of the statutes in light of precedent from other jurisdictions. See 989 P 2d at 876. Looking at analogous precedent from other states, the Nevada Supreme Court noted that a right of indemnity had been found to overcome the workers compensation immunity in Texas,13 Arizona,14 Oklahoma,15 and Georgia.16 The only contrary precedent noted by the Haggerty court was from Colorado. …