CAIN v STEVENSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 85-034 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 HARRY C A I N , d / b / a CAIN ELECTRIC, P l a i n t i f f and R - e s p o n d e n t , CLEATUS G. STEVENSON, d / b / a a n d SONS CONSTRUCTION, STEVENSON D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of R o s e b u d , T h e H o n o r a b l e A l f r e d B. C o a t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Herndon, H a r p e r & Munro; Montana R o d n e y T. Hartman, B i l l i n g s , F o r Respondent: C l a r e n c e B e l u e , H a r d i n , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J u l y 11, 1 9 8 5 Decided: Filed: str i ~4 f985 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 , 1985 M r . J u s t i c e F r a n k B. t h e Court. H a r r y Cain 9, 1983, in District, Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f ( r e s p o n d e n t ) f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n o n September District the seeking Court damages for of the injuries Sixteenth he Judicial received while w o r k i n g a s an e l e c t r i c a 1 s u b c o n t r a c t o r f o r C l e a t u s S t e v e n s o n (appellant) . The j u r y awarded r e s p o n d e n t $107,999.77. This appea 1 f o l l o w e d . Respondent six-plex apartment Montana. general was the electrical building under subcontractor A p p e l l a n t was t h e owner o f contractor. "rough-in" Respondent e l e c t r i c a l work. in construction was on a Ashland, t h e b u i l d i n g and t h e hired to complete the H e f u r n i s h e d h i s own t o o l s and worked u n d e r h i s own t i m e s c h e d u l e . By December 1 5 , dent had been 1982, t h e day o f t h e a c c i d e n t , working at employee, site construction for On t h a t d a y h e came t o work w i t h approximately t h r e e days. his the respon- Jim Miller. The w e a t h e r was v e r y cold and t h e r e was snow and i c e on t h e g r o u n d . The s p l i t - l e v e l b u i l d i n g u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n d i d n o t h a v e steps from t h e ground spondent was approximately level t o the working. 3 to 4 propped h i s own 4 - f o o t The feet second second above the f l o o r where re- floor ground entrance was s o respondent ladder against t h e wall. Respondent u s e d t h e l a d d e r t o e n t e r and e x i t t h e b u i l d i n g s e v e r a l t i m e s t h a t morning. building but A t a b o u t 10:OO a.m., found his he attempted t o e x i t t h e l a d d e r t o be missing. T h e r e was a c o n c r e t e c i n d e r b l o c k p l a c e d below t h e e n t r a n c e which some o f t h e w o r k e r s used a s a s t e p . Respondent s t e p p e d down on t h e c i n d e r block. The b l o c k was c o v e r e d w i t h i c e , foot t o slip. He fell, causing h i s h i t t i n g h i s b u t t o c k s on t h e b l o c k . Pain i n h i s l o w e r back and b u t t o c k s r e s u l t e d . The p a i n d i d n o t s u b s i d e and h e was f o r c e d t o l e a v e work e a r l y . The pain respondent continued saw a specialist. for three weeks, at time which d o c t o r who r e f e r r e d him t o a n o r t h o p e d i c Two days after consulting the specialist, s u r g e r y was p e r f o r m e d f o r what r e s p o n d e n t u n d e r s t o o d t o b e a n excision of a ruptured disc. This action followed. v e r d i c t was r e n d e r e d On December verdict. a jury Court District Respondent was awarded entered judgment on the Appellant r a i s e s t h e following issues: Whether t h e D i s t r i c t 1. that The 1984, f i n d i n g a p p e l l a n t 82 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t and r e s p o n d e n t 18 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t . $107,999.77. 6, the safe 50-71-202, place work create MCA, contractor/owner to to a C o u r t was i n e r r o r i n r u l i n g a statutes, duty running s u b c o n t r a c t o r when 55 50-71-201 from the a and general subcontractor r e t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r o l o v e r h i s means o f a c c e s s t o t h e b u i l d i n g where h e works. 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was i n e r r o r i n r u l i n g t h a t r e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t h a v e t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g damages by medical e x p e r t testimony. 3. Whether the District Court was in in error r e d u c i n g t h e j u r y ' s award o f damages by t h e j u r y ' s not finding of c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t o f r e s p o n d e n t . SAFE PLACE TO WORK It i s well provide e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana t h a t an e m p l o y e r must employees 50-71-201, with MCA. This a safe place obligation to has g e n e r a 1 c o n t r a c t o r s t o employees o f work. been Section extended from s u b c o n t r a c t o r s when t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r c o n t r o l s job s a f e t y o r has a non-delegable duty of safety a r i s i n g out of Construction (Mont. 1981), contract. 625 P.2d 51, Stepanek v. 38 St.Rep. Kober 385. Shannon v . Howard S . W r i g h t C o n s t . Co. 593 P.2d 438. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 269, However, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s o b l i g a t i o n does n o t extend from g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s t o s u b c o n t r a c t o r s b e c a u s e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s a r e a b l e t o c o n t r o l and i n f l u e n c e t h e s a f e t y o f t h e i r work p l a c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n s t r u c t e d on t h e s a f e p l a c e t o work law found i n §§ 50-71-201 and 50-71-202, MCA: 50-71-201. Employer t o f u r n i s h and r e q u i r e s a f e t y d e v i c e s and p r a c t i c e s . ~ v ; r employe; s h a l l f u r n i s h d p l a c e o f ~ e m ~ l o v m e n t which - - f - f o r e m ~ l o v e e s is sa e .. * t h e r e i n and s h a l l f u r n i s h and u s e and r e q u i r e t h e use o f such s a f e t y d e v i c e s and s a f e g u a r d s and s h a l l a d o p t a n d u s e s u c h p r a c t i c e s , means, m e t h o d s , o p e r a t i o n s , and p r o c e s s e s a s a r e r e a s o n a b l y a d e q u a t e t o r e n d e r t h e p l a c e o f employment s a f e and s h a l l d o e v e r y o t h e r t h i n g reasonably necessary t o p r o t e c t t h e l i f e and safety of employees. [emphasis added] 4 50-71-202. Employer t o p r o v i d e and m a i n t a i n s a f e p l a c e o f employment. (1) An e m p l o y e r who i s t h e owner o r lessee o f any r e a l p r o p e r t y i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l n o t construct o r cause t o b e constructed o r m a i n t a i n e d a n y p l a c e o f employment t h a t i s unsafe. ( 2 ) Every e m p l o y e r who i s t h e owner o f a p l a c e o f employment o r lessee t h e r e o f s h a l l r e p a i r and m a i n t a i n t h e same a s t o r e n d e r it s a f e . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e s a f e p l a c e t o work s t a t u t e s o n l y a p p l y t o s i t u a t i o n s where t h e c l a i m p r e s e n t e d i s b r o u g h t by a n employee o f a s u b c o n t r a c t o r and t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r has control over employer-employee Therefore, the safety. Respondent was not in an s i t u a t i o n b e c a u s e h e was a s u b c o n t r a c t o r . safe place t o work instructions should not have b e e n g i v e n . W e must d e t e r m i n e i f t h e language o f § 50-71-201, MCA, "a p l a c e o f employment which i s s a f e f o r e m p l o y e e s , " i n c l u d e s s u b c o n t r a c t o r s i n t h e c a t e g o r y o f empl-oyees. does. W e b e l i e v e it I t was t h e i n t e n t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o i n c l u d e c o n t r a c - t o r s i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "employee." S e c t i o n 92-411, (1947). that have We 50-71-202, a l r e a d y determined were MCA, subcontractors. incorporated intended Stepanek, then the to supra. $ S 50-71-201 cover If subcontractor a rationale, if the and employees of is subcontractor indivj-dually employee o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and i s c o v e r e d . appellant's R.C.M. is an However, u n d e r subcontractor is not i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e n h e i s n o t a n employee and i s n o t c o v e r e d . We cannot believe t h i s was t h e S e c t i o n 50-71-202, but simply requires on t h e " p l a c e o f safe instructing MCA, makes no m e n t i o n o f " e m p l o y e e s , " employers to provide a safe place to work. the of is MCA, employment" r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t a t u s o f t h e Respondent, place the Legislature. L i k e w i s e , t h e e m p h a s i s i n S 50-71-201, employment. worker. intent of jury a s a s u b c o n t r a c t o r , was e n t i t l e d t o a District The on Court S $ 50-71-201 did and err by not 50-71-202, MCA. MEDICAL EXPERT TESTIMONY A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e damages by produce a motion for motion. expert medical medical expert directed testimony. at Respondent trial, and The trial verdict. appellant did not made c o u r t denied a the A p p e l l a n t m a i n t a i n s t h i s was e r r o r . The t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d verdict. A c l a i m a n t i s competent t o t e s t i f y a s t o h i s p a s t and p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n . for the However, jury to R e s p o n d e n t ' s t e s t i m o n y was s u f f i c i e n t determine respondent's whether testimony, there standing was an alone, injury. is not s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e permanency where d i s p u t e d a n d where n o t a p p a r e n t from t h e i n j u r y i t s e l f . not sufficient Likewise, l a y testimony i s t o e s t a b l i s h cause injury not apparently related f o r those aspects of an t o t h e accident i n question. I n Zegman v . State (N.Y. 1 9 7 9 ) , 416 N.Y.S.2d 505, this r u l e was s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s : ... c l a i m a n t was c l e a r l y c o m p e t e n t t o t e s t i f y t o h e r p a s t and p r e s e n t c o n d i tion. (Vincent-Wilday, I n c . v . S t r a i t , 273 App.Div. 1 0 5 4 , 79 N.Y.S.2d 811.) The C o u r t d o e s n o t however c o n s t r u e s u c h testimony a s sufficient t o establish e i t h e r t h e permanency o f t h e i n j u r y o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of future pain. [citat i o n s omitted] Zegman, 416 N.Y.S.2d Not all a t 506. injuries require p r o v e permanency o r c a u s a t i o n . is not testimony their cause where necessary the medical testimony of permanent the injuries is injury such laymen c a n p l a i n l y see, o r i n f e r from t h e i n j u r y , and it w i l l that be to I t h a s been held t h a t medical t o prove nature expert permanent, such as loss or that i t s cause of a limb. R e s p o n d e n t ' s b a c k i n j u r y was n o t s u c h an i n j u r y . C o r y e l l v. Conn (Wis. 1 9 7 9 ) , 276 N.W.2d 723, addresses t h e i s s u e o f permanency o f i n j u r i e s a s f o l l o w s : Where, a s h e r e , a n i n j u r y i s s u b j e c t i v e and a layman c a n n o t know i f it w i l l continue, e x p e r t medical testimony i s n e c e s s a r y w i t h r e g a r d t o permanency and f u t u r e p a i n and s u f f e r i n g . D i e m e l v. W e i r i c h , 264 W i s . 265, 268, 58 N.W.2d 651 (1953). .. '. Only a m e d i c a l e x p e r t i s q u a l i f i e d t o e x p r e s s an o p i n i o n t o a m e d i c a l cert a i n t y , o r b a s e d on m e d i c a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s ( n o t mere p o s s i b i l i t i e s ) , a s t o w h e t h e r t h e pain w i l l continue i n t h e future, a n d , i f s o , f o r how l o n g a p e r i o d it w i l l SO continue. .' I d . a t 268, 58 N.W.2d a t 652-653. .. Corye 11, I n t h e s i m i l a r c a s e o f C l i f f o r d v. 383 A.2d 749, permanent the court injury to the Opdyke 1978), found t h a t p r e s e n t i n g t h e i s s u e o f jury was p r e j u d i c i a l l y erroneous: q u e s t i o n o f t h e p r o g n o s i s o f an i n j u r y and p r o b a b l e p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t y i s one n e c e s s a r i l y w i t h i n t h e a m b i t o f expert medica 1 opinion (except for The (N.J. disabilities which are apparent to a layman, such as an amputated body member). And the burden of proving such permanency by competent medical testimony rests of course with plaintiff. Clifford, 383 A.2d at 752. The trial court presented to the jury the issue of permanent injury in instruction number 26. ed. Appellant object- Because of inadequate proof to support the instruction, it was error to give it. There must be a new trial, but only on the issue of damages. Finally, respondent was found to be 18 percent negligent, however, the trial judge failed to reduce his award by this amount. The new damage award shall be reduced by 18 percent, pursuant to S 27-1-702, MCA. The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial on damages only. We concur: n

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.