This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves an employee of a subcontractor who was injured while working at a mine shaft. The Plaintiff, an employee of Dravo Engineering Company, was injured when his safety line became entangled with a hoist mechanism operated by a co-worker, causing him to be lifted into the air and fall. The Plaintiff alleged that the general contractor, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, retained sufficient control over the worksite and safety measures to be held liable for negligence under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 414 (paras 2-3, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Eddy County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that Westinghouse retained sufficient control over the worksite and safety measures to owe a duty of care under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 414. The Plaintiff presented evidence of Westinghouse's involvement in safety protocols, employee oversight, and post-accident corrective measures (paras 6-7).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that Dravo, as the subcontractor, had exclusive control over the work and safety measures, and that Westinghouse's role was limited to general supervisory authority, which did not create a duty of care toward the Plaintiff (para 6).
Legal Issues
- Did Westinghouse retain sufficient control over the worksite and the subcontractor's activities to owe a duty of care under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 414?
- Was summary judgment appropriate given the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding Westinghouse's control and potential negligence?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial (para 10).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Hartz and Black JJ. concurring):
The Court found that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the extent of control Westinghouse retained over the worksite and the subcontractor's activities. Evidence presented by the Plaintiff suggested that Westinghouse exercised more than general supervisory authority, including requiring compliance with its safety manual, directing safety corrections, and retaining approval rights over safety measures and employee management. This evidence, if believed, could support a finding of liability under Restatement §§ 343 and 414 (paras 6-8).
The Court emphasized that liability under these sections depends on whether Westinghouse failed to exercise its retained control with reasonable care and whether such failure caused the Plaintiff's injury. The Court clarified that its decision did not preclude Westinghouse from seeking summary judgment on other grounds or from contesting the extent of its control at trial (paras 13-16).
Concurrence by Hartz J.:
Hartz J. concurred fully with the majority opinion but wrote separately to emphasize the limited scope of the decision. He noted that the Court's ruling only addressed whether there was sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment on the issue of control. The Plaintiff would still need to prove at trial that Westinghouse's failure to exercise its control with reasonable care caused the injury (paras 12-16).