Smith v. Western Electric Co. – Case Brief
Summary of Smith v. Western Electric Co., 643 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. App. 1982).
Facts: Smith (P) began working for Western Electric Company (D) in 1950. In 1975 he began to suffer serious respiratory problems due to exposure to second hand tobacco smoke at work. By 1980 Western Electric had adopted a policy of protecting nonsmokers from smokers at the recommendation of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Smith filed suit in August 1980, seeking to enjoin Western Electric from exposing him to tobacco smoke in the workplace. The plaintiff alleged that he had been handicapped by his susceptibility to second hand tobacco smoke and alleged that defendant had breached its common law duty to provide a safe workplace. The trial court granted Western Electric’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and Smith appealed.
Issue: When is injunctive relief proper?
Holding and Rule: Injunctive relief is proper when: 1) the harm cannot be properly compensated; 2) permanent injury might be prevented; and 3) the issue before the court involves a recurrent risk that would necessitate a multiplicity of lawsuits.
An injunction may issue ‘to prevent the doing of any legal wrong whatever, whenever in the opinion of the court an adequate remedy cannot be afforded by an action for damages.’ Injunctive relief is unavailable unless irreparable harm is otherwise likely to result and plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
The allegations of the instant case show that the tobacco smoke of co-workers is hazardous to the health of employees in general and plaintiff in particular. The allegations also show that Western Electric knows the tobacco smoke is harmful to Smith’s health and that Western Electric has the authority, ability, and reasonable means to control smoking in areas requiring a smoke-free environment. Therefore, by failing to exercise its control and assume its responsibility to eliminate the hazardous condition caused by tobacco smoke, defendant has breached and is breaching its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.
A deterioration of Smith’s health is irreparable and is a harm for which money damages cannot adequately compensate. Smith should not be required to await the harm’s fruition before he is entitled to seek an inadequate remedy. The hazardous work environment also presents a recurrent risk of harm that would necessitate a multiplicity of lawsuits unless something is done.
Under these facts an injunction would be an appropriate remedy. Smith has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted and the trial court erred in dismissing the petition. Plaintiff should be allowed the opportunity to prove his allegations.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.
See Bell v. Hood for a law school civil procedure case brief in which the United States Supreme Court held that the failure to state a claim calls for a judgment for the opposing party on the merits rather than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.