Preview:

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A . F OTW

1972

DANIEL P. HANNIFIN, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

CAHILL-MOONEY CONSTRUCTION COI@AW, I N C . , a Montana Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from:

D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record: Far Appellant : Henningsen and P u r c e l l , B u t t e , Montana. James E. P u r c e l l argued, B u t t e , Montana. For Respondent : C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana. Kendrfck Smith argued, B u t t e , 14ontana.

Submitted: Decided :
Filed:

June 13, 1972

JuN 3 0 1 r d

3W 3 0 1972 U

Xr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from t h e g r a n t i n g of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r summary judgment by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e second j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of S i l v e r Bow, Hon. John B. McClernan, judge p r e s i d i n g . I n August 1968, defendant Cahill-Mooney C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, I n c . was given a c o n t r a c t by t h e S t a u f f e r Chemical

Company t o remove c e r t a i n equipment from a b u i l d i n g a t i t s p l a n t n e a r B u t t e , Montana. Work on t h e c o n t r a c t commenced The

August 2 5 , 1968 and t e r m i n a t e d i n e a r l y December 1968. work was done w i t h o u t p l a n s o r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .

The equipment

t o be removed was p o i n t e d o u t t o defendant by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of S t a u f f e r , who remained on t h e job d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e time
i t took t o remove t h e equipment.

He t o l d defendant when t o

s t o p work on t h e p r o j e c t i n December, n o t i f y i n g defendant orally

hat's a l l we want done."

P l a i n t i f f , D a n i e l P. Hannifin, was an employee of S t a u f f e r Chemical Company. He had worked f o r t h e company over t e n

y e a r s and had worked s e v e r a l y e a r s i n t h e wash p l a n t , t h e b u i l d i n g housing t h e equipment removed by defendant. Plain-

t i f f ' s d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t e a r l y i n 1969 he had been o f f work approximately a month due t o i l l n e s s and a d e a t h i n h i s family. On February 20, 1969, t h r e e o r f o u r days a f t e r h i s

r e t u r n t o work, he f e l l through a h o l e i n t h e f l o o r of t h e wash p l a n t , f a l l i n g some twenty f e e t . He was s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d and The h o l e i n t h e f l o o r

a s a r e s u l t was o f f work eleven months.

was a r e s u l t of removal of t h e equipment h e r e t o f o r e d e s c r i b e d . P l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d medical and workman's compensation benefits. He t h e n brought t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendant a l l e g i n g

n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of defendant i n removing c e r t a i n b a r r i c a d e s and r a i l i n g s and i n f a i l i n g t o warn p l a n t employees. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t defendant c o n s t r u c t i o n company l e f t t h e job about December 1, 1968, and had no c o n t r o l over t h e job s i t e f o r a p e r i o d of some two months and twenty days preceding t h e a c c i d e n t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d defendant

summary judgment f o r two r e a s o n s , (1) t h e r e were no genuine i s s u e s of f a c t o r law a s t o t h e l i a b i l i t y of d e f e n d a n t , and (2) t h e r e appeared t o be no duty owed by defendant t o p l a i n t i f f a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t on February 20, 1969. P l a i n t i f f r a i s e s two i s s u e f o r review on a p p e a l :

1.

Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n g r a n t i n g summary judg-

ment f o r defendant on t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y ? 2. Were t h e r e any genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t which

should have been submitted t o t h e j u r y ? Defendant, b e f o r e t r i a l , r e l i e d on one c a s e a s c o n t r o l l i n g , Ulmen v . Schwieger, 92 14ont. 331, 354, 12 P.2d 856. In that

c a s e p l a i n t i f f Ulmen drove an automobile i n t o an open excavat i o n and a g a i n s t a c o n c r e t e c u l v e r t which p l a i n t i f f supposed was a r e g u l a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d and used highway. injured. He was s e r i o u s l y

There were two d e f e n d a n t s , a g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r and a A t t h e time of t h e a c c i -

s u b c o n t r a c t o r f o r t h e c o n c r e t e work.

d e n t t h e c o n c r e t e work was complete b u t had n o t been a c c e p t e d by t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r o r t h e s t a t e highway commission. A

judgment of $10,000 was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t b o t h d e f e n d a n t s and t h e y appealed. This Court a f f i r m e d a s t o t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , The Court h e l d :

b u t r e v e r s e d a s t o t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r Roscoe.

"1t i s a l s o u n i m ~ o r t a n t t h a t Roscoe's work had f n o t been ' a c c e ~ t e d . It was c o m ~ l e t e dand he had withdrawn a l l r o n t r o l over i t , s b t h a t i t was a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t b u t an i n t e n r a l art of t h e u n f i n i s h e d highway, no p a r t of wKich would be accepted u n t i l ~ c h w i e g e r ' s [general contractor] e n t i r e contract had been f u l l y executed.

"'The g e n e r a l r u l e i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t an independent c o n t r a c t o r i s n o t l i a b l e f o r i n j u r i e s t o t h i r d persons, occurring a f t e r t h e contractor h a s completed t h e work and t u r n e d i t over t o t h e owner o r employer and t h e same h a s been accepted by him ;'; ;'c the l a t t e r i s substituted a s the r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t y . The reason f o r t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of l i a b i l i t y i s found i n t h e g e n e r a l d o c t r i n e t h a t an a c t i o n f o r n e g l i g e n c e w i l l n o t l i e u n l e s s t h e defendant was under some duty t o t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y a t t h e time and p l a c e where t h e i n j u r y occurred which he omitted t o perform.' (14 R.C.L. 107) The c a s e s c i t e d i n support of t h e above t e x t a r e of t h a t c l a s s wherein an owner o r c o n t r a c t o r employs an independent c o n t r a c t o r t o work upon premises t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f , and c o n t r o l o v e r , which i s s u r r e n d e r e d t o him, and consequently t h e independent c o n t r a c t o r i s n o t r e l i e v e d of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y u n t i l h i s work h a s been accepted and t h e premises r e v e r t t o t h e c o n t r o l of t h e owner o r o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t o r . Such i s n o t t h e c a s e h e r e ; a s shown above t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t o r , ~ c h w i e g e r ,was a t a l l times i n c o n t r o l of t h e e n t i r e p r o j e c t e d highway, t h e dangerous c o n d i t i o n e x i s t i n g a t t h e c u l v e r t being b u t a p a r t thereof.
A

-

E i t h e r an independent c o n t r a c t o r o r a s e r v a n t i s l i a b l e t o a t h i r d person i n j u r e d by reason of t h e n e g l i g e n t h a n d l i n g of p r o p e r t y when he owes a d u t y t o such t h i r d person, b u t h e owes a d u t y t o p r o t e c t t h i r d p e r s o n s only when he has such c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y a s t h e master o r c o n t r a c t e e would o t h e r w i s e have. (Hagerty v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 38 Mont. 69, 25 L.R.A. ( n . s . ) 356, 98 Pac. 643.) I t i s t h e owner, o c c u p i e r o r person i n charge of premises who i s i n duty bound t o keep t h e premises i n a r e a s o n a b l y s a f e c o n d i t i o n , s o t h a t t h o s e whom he h a s i n v i t e d t o e n t e r upon them s h a l l noc be unreasonably exposed t o danger, and one charged w i t h t h i s d u t y , who f a i l s t o prevent e n t r y by means of proper b a r r i c a d e s o r warning s i g n s , i m p l i e d l y i n v i t e s t h o s e who o t h e r w i s e might l a w f u l l y e n t e r , t o come upon t h e dangerous premises. I f , through h i s n e g l i g e n c e t o perform t h i s d u t y , persons e n t e r and a r e i n j u r e d , h e , and n o t h i s s e r v a n t o r an independent c o n t r a c t o r who owed no such duty t o t h e p u b l i c , i s l i a b l e f o r damages s u f f e r e d by r e a s o n of h i s n e g l i g e n c e . (3 Shearman & R e d f i e l d on Law of Negligence, 6 t h e d . , 699; 45 C . J . 823-826; Montague v . Hanson, 38 Mont. 376, 99 Pac, 1063. )
"On t h e day of t h e a c c i d e n t , Roscoe was n e i t h e r I owner, o c c u p i e r n o r person i n c h a r g e f of any p o r t i o n of t h e new g r a d e , and a t no time had h e been charged w i t h t h e duty of m a i n t a i n i n g a b a r r i e r a t t h e p o i n t where t h e d e t o u r marked t h e end of t h e c o n s t r u c t e d grade and opened highway. " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d )

If

P l a i n t i f f concedes t h e r u l e i n Ulmen i s good law b u t a r g u e s t h a t i t only a p p l i e s where t h e p l a i n t i f f i s a member of t h e

general public employee.

and does n o t a p p l y where t h e p l a i n t i f f i s an

T h i s C o u r t ' s d e f i n i t i o n of an "independent c o n t r a c t o r " i s w e l l s t a t e d i n Grief v . I n d u s t r i a l Accident Fund, 108 Mont. 519, 93 P.2d 961. Further, the depositions c l e a r l y show t h a t

defendant was n o t a s e r v a n t of S t a u f f e r Chemical Company; i p s o f a c t o , d e f e n d a n t ' s s e r v a n t s could n o t be f e l l o w s e r v a n t s of p l a i n t i f f f o r S t a u f f e r had no c o n t r o l over t h e manner i n which d e f e n d a n t ' s employees d i d t h e i r work. 321, 236 P. 550. C a l l a n v. Hample, 73 Mont.

W f i n d no m e r i t t o p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t i s s u e . e

I n h i s second i s s u e on a p p e a l p l a i n t i f f r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether o r n o t p l a i n t i f f i s p r o t e c t e d by t h e S c a f f o l d Act of Montana. S e c t i o n s 69-1401 through 69-1405, R.C.M. 1947.

P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t s e c t i o n 69-1404 of t h a t a c t i s a p p l i c a b l e t o h i s case. That s e c t i o n r e a d s :

"It s h a l l be t h e d u t y o f a l l owners, c o n t r a c t o r s , b u i l d e r s , o r persons having t h e d i r e c t and immedi a t e c o n t r o l o r s u p e r v i s i o n of any b u i l d i n g s i n t h e c o u r s e of e r e c t i o n , which s h a l l be more t h a n t h i r t y f e e t high, t o see t h a t a l l stairways, e l e v a t o r openings, f l u e s , and a l l o t h e r openings i n t h e f l o o r s , s h a l l b e covered o r p r o p e r l y p r o t e c t e d 7k +:."

*

W f i n d no a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s s e c t i o n t o t h e s i t u a t i o n e here. S e c t i o n 69-1404 a p p l i e s o n l y t o " a l l owners, c o n t r a c t o r s ,

b u i l d e r s , o r persons having t h e d i r e c t and immediate c o n t r o l o r s u p e r v i s i o n o f any b u i l d i n g s i n t h e c o u r s e of e r e c t i o n 1 ' . Here, i t i s obvious t h a t defendant simply had no immediate control o r supervision. W do n o t a g r e e w i t h p l a i n t i f f ' s r e l i a n c e on a r e c e n t e d e c i s i o n of t h i s C o u r t , S t a t e ex r e l . Great F a l l s N a t i o n a l Bank v . D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 336, 345, 463 P.2d 326, i n s u p p o r t of h i s p o s i t i o n . There t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judg-

ment i n a t r u e s c a f f o l d i n g s i t u a t i o n , h o l d i n g t h a t s e c t i o n 69-1401, R.C.M. 1947, imposed a b s o l u t e l i a b i l i t y .
O appeal n

t h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h e Court was---- Is a landowner n o t i n d i r e c t

s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l of t h e work l i a b l e i n damages f o r v i o l a t i o n of t h e S c a f f o l d Act by an employee of an independent contractor? The 'Court h e l d h e was n o t , s a y i n g :
i t i s c l e a r t o us from t h e language of t h e Act c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t of i t s purpose t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d only t o make t h e i n j u r e d workman whole by g r a n t i n g him r e l i e f t o t h e e x t e n t of h i s i n j u r i e s and damages a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n , f i r m o r c o r p o r a t i o n having d i r e c t and immediate c o n t r o l of work i n v o l v i n g t h e u s e of s c a f f o l d i n g , I I
"J;

c ';

c ';

Here, t h e S c a f f o l d Act h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

i

Associate J u s t i c e

~ s s o c i a f b ustices. J



Download fb9dc511-4d8e-4cbe-9ab7-cc218440126b.pdf

Montana Law