Case Title: Ramsey v. Pacific Power and Light

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1990-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Ramsey v. Pacific Power and Light1990 WY 66792 P.2d 1385Case Number: 89-265Decided: 06/15/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
STEVE RAMSEY AND JUDY 
RAMSEY, 

APPELLANTS 
(PLAINTIFFS),

v.

PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT, 
A MAINE CORPORATION; PACIFICORP, A MAINE CORPORATION; UNNAMED EMPLOYEES A, B, C, 
D, E, OF PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT OR PACIFICORP; AND UNNAMED CONTRACTORS AA, BB, 
CC, 

APPELLEES 
(DEFENDANTS).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Natrona County, Harry Leimback, J.

Phillip T. 
Willoughby, Casper, for appellants.

Mark L. Carman 
of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for 
appellees.

Before 
THOMAS, URBIGKIT and GOLDEN, JJ., RAPER and ROONEY, Retired 
JJ.

ROONEY, Justice, 
Retired.

[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from a summary judgment entered in favor of a landowner against an employee of 
an independent contractor, the employee being injured while performing work on 
the landowner's premises.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Appellants 
acknowledge the general rule and its exception which are applicable to this case 
as set forth in Stockwell v. Parker Drilling Co., Inc., 733 P.2d 1029 (Wyo. 
1987); Hill v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 765 P.2d 1348 (Wyo. 1988); and 
Brewster v. Salveson Construction, Inc., 765 P.2d 1350 (Wyo. 1988). Such general 
rule of law is that the owner of land is not liable to the employee of an 
independent contractor, except as stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 414 
(1977):

"One who entrusts work to 
an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, 
is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the 
employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure 
to exercise his control with reasonable care."

Comment (c) to 
this section of the Restatement was quoted in Stockwell, 733 P.2d  at 1033, as 
follows:

     "`In order for the 
rule stated in this Section to apply, the employer must have retained at least 
some degree of control over the manner in which the work is done. It is not 
enough that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, 
to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or 
recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe 
alterations and deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to 
employers, but it does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his 
methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of a 
right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work his 
own way.'" (Emphasis in original.)

[¶4]      In this case, the 
employee was appellant, Steve Ramsey (hereinafter referred to as "Ramsey"). His 
employer was Northwest Energy Services Company (hereinafter referred to as 
"NESCO"). The landowner was appellee, Pacific Power and Light (hereinafter 
referred to as "PP & L"). Ramsey was injured on May 27, 1988, while 
performing work as a pipefitter at PP & L's power plant near Gillette, 
Wyoming. The work was done in connection with a Master Agreement contract 
between PP & L and NESCO under which NESCO performed annual maintenance and 
inspection work at the plant. The plant was shut down during this "maintenance 
outage." Appellants do not contest NESCO's status in the operation as an 
independent contractor, but they contend that PP & L exercised control over 
the work site at the time of the injury to Ramsey and that its failure to 
exercise reasonable care in connection therewith resulted in the 
injuries.

[¶5]      Thus, we must 
examine the record to determine if that submitted in connection with the motion 
for summary judgment reflected such exercise of control over the work place at 
the time of theinjury.1

[¶6]      The injury 
occurred when two of NESCO's employees were moving on a duct about 80 feet above 
the ground in order to work on a damper door. Ramsey was working below on a pipe 
about 14 feet above the ground. The two employees on the duct were pulling 
welding leads. They heard a pin,2 which was used to hold the damper 
door in place, begin to roll toward the edge of the duct. Their effort to stop 
it before it rolled over the duct was unsuccessful. The pin hit Ramsey on his 
head, causing the injuries. In their depositions, each of these two NESCO 
employees stated that they were not supervised or given orders by PP & L 
employees.

[¶7]      Appellants argue 
in two respects that the material before the district court was sufficient to 
indicate possible control of the premises by PP & L at the time of the 
incident.

[¶8]      First, they point 
to an incident which occurred the day before Ramsey was injured in which another 
damper door about 50 yards from the damper door on which the two NESCO employees 
were working closed suddenly because of defective construction. PP & L 
employees then came into the area to inspect the damage to the closed door and 
to correct the problem. After doing so, NESCO resumed work. Not only did the 
closed door incident occur at a distant location from the place at which the pin 
fell, but there was nothing before the district court to indicate that the pin 
was on the duct at the time PP & L employees were involved with the closed 
damper door. It is uncontested that NESCO had resumed control of the work site 
and was performing under the contract at the time of the injury.

[¶9]      Second, 
appellants contend that deposition statements made by John Beltz, safety 
coordinator for PP & L at the power plant, reflect control by PP & L 
over the work site at the time of the injury. Such statements were to the effect 
that he had the responsibility to coordinate safety programs at the plant for 
PP & L employees; that he would make contractors aware of special safety 
policies when they began work at the plant; and that if he observed a safety 
deficiency in connection with a contractor's work, he would notify one of the 
contractor's supervisors of it and see that the deficiency was corrected.3 

[¶10]   There is nothing in the record to 
indicate that John Beltz had knowledge of a NESCO employee working beneath a 
place where other NESCO employees were working or that he had any knowledge 
concerning the origin or location of the pin.

[¶11]   The record reflects that none of 
NESCO's employees were supervised by PP & L employees. NESCO conducted its 
own safety meetings. If John Beltz observed a safety deficiency by NESCO, he 
certainly had the obligation to notify NESCO at the supervisory level and to 
have it corrected. To do otherwise could result in severe damage to the property 
of PP & L or in severe injury to someone's person - as happened in this 
instance.

[¶12]   John Beltz's coordination of safety 
programs for PP & L employees, notification by him to contractors beginning 
work at the plant of special safety policies, and notification to one of the 
contractors' supervisors of an observed safety deficiency in connection with the 
contractor's work to see that the deficiency is corrected fall far short of that 
set out in Comment (c) to § 414 Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, as 
necessary to retain control of the work place.

[¶13]   Accordingly, there was nothing 
before the trial court to indicate a retention by PP & L of control over the 
work site at the time of the injury - nothing to support an exception to the 
general rule that the owner of land is not liable to the employee of an 
independent contractor for work injuries occurring on the premises. The trial 
court properly found that PP & L did not owe a duty to Ramsey in this 
instance.

[¶14]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 As stated in Stockwell, 
733 P.2d at 1031:

"Our oft-recited standard 
of review on appeal from summary judgment is:

"`When reviewing a 
summary judgment on appeal, our duty is the same as that of the district court 
in that we have before us the same material and must follow the same standards. 
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving there exists no 
genuine issue of material fact and that [he] is entitled to judgment as a matter 
of law. We look at the record from the viewpoint most favorable to the party 
opposing the motion, giving him every favorable inference which may be drawn 
from facts in the affidavits, depositions, and other material properly submitted 
in the record.' (Citations omitted.) Noonan v. Texaco, Inc., Wyo., 713 P.2d 160, 
162 (1986). See also Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Wyo., 718 P.2d 890, 893 
(1986)."

2 The pin weighed 9.5 
pounds, was 3 inches in diameter and 8 inches in length.

3 Following is his 
testimony with reference to such notification:

"Q. Okay. One of the 
areas that I'm unclear on is that the interaction of PP and L with a contractor 
in trying to avoid a situation such as this and the things that happened that 
you just described -

"A. Uh-huh.

"Q. - can you elaborate 
on that interaction? As an example, if you noticed an area was not clean and 
there were workers above and below, what action would you take?

"A. I would approach that 
particular crew's supervisor.

"Q. And when you say 
approach, what do you mean?

"A. In other words, I 
would tell him that this - you should not have people working above or below, 
the area needs to be clean. I would mention what offenses that I 
found.

"Q. And if he did not 
take action, what would you do then?

"A. If he refused to take 
action?

* * * 
[objection]

"Q. (BY MR. WILLOUGHBY) 
You've indicated that if you saw an unsafe condition, that you would contact a 
supervisor of the employees working in or around that unsafe 
condition?

"A. That's 
correct.

"Q. That's 
correct?

"A. Un-huh.

"Q. All right. And that 
is part of your job responsibilities?

"A. Yeah, I would say - I 
would agree with that.

"Q. All right. If the 
supervisor did not respond to your - well, let me rephrase. You said you would 
suggest changes to that supervisor?

"A. I would identify the 
deficiencies with him.

"Q. All right. Do you do 
anything more than identify the deficiencies?

"A. Yes, I would ask him 
to correct it.

"Q. And if he - and is 
that part of your job responsibilities?

"A. Yes, it 
is.

* * *

"Q. All right. Well, let 
me ask you this. In regards to your job responsibilities, that's what I'm 
getting at, I don't want to know an answer to a hypothetical, I don't want you 
to speculate I want to know what your job responsibilities dictate or require 
you to do when you find a deficiency in the same area and ask that that be 
recommended, what are you supposed to do, what's your job responsibilities at 
that time?

"A. Okay. If I find 
something that I feel is seriously wrong, I can stop that individual 
action right then and there.

"Q. How do you do 
that?

"A. I can go through that 
supervisor and tell him I want that stopped immediately." (Emphasis 
added.)