HANNIFIN v CAHILL-MOONEY CONSTR C

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: 3W 3 0 1972 U June 13, 1972 JuN 3 0 1 r d 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 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 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 a s a r e s u l t was o f f work eleven months. The h o l e i n t h e f l o o r 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 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. A t t h e time of t h e a c c i - 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 , 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. The Court h e l d : "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 If 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 ) 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 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 employee. 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 : c '; c '; 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; 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 ~ s s o c i a f b ustices. J Associate J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.