Case Title: Food Lion, Inc. v. Max-Yeboah

Citation: 

Docket Number: 031140

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  All the Justices 
 
SOUTHERN FLOORS AND ACOUSTICS, INC. 
 
v.  Record No. 031097      OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS 
 
 
 
April 23, 2004 
ANTHONY MAX-YEBOAH 
 
FOOD LION, INC. 
 
v.  Record No. 031140  
 
ANTHONY MAX-YEBOAH, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 
Edward L. Hogshire, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether a customer who is 
injured by tripping over a stack of floor tiles in a grocery 
store where the floor is being re-tiled is contributorily 
negligent as a matter of law and, if not, whether both the 
independent contractor installing the new floor and the store 
owner can be held liable to the customer for his injuries. 
I.  Facts and Proceedings Below 
 
Anthony Max-Yeboah ("Max-Yeboah") tripped over a stack of 
tiles in an aisle of a Food Lion, Inc. ("Food Lion") grocery 
store in Charlottesville, Virginia and broke his ankle.  On 
the evening of Max-Yeboah's accident, employees of Southern 
Floors and Acoustics, Inc. ("Southern Floors"), a 
subcontractor, were installing new floor tiles in the aisle 
where Max-Yeboah was injured.  The Southern Floors employees 
had spread glue on part of the floor of the aisle an hour 
before Max-Yeboah entered it and were waiting for the glue to 
become "tacky" so that new tiles could be installed.  One end 
of the aisle was completely blocked by caution tape.  
Conflicting testimony was offered concerning whether, and to 
what degree, the other end of the aisle was blocked by a fan 
used to dry the glue, and caution tape. 
 
Between 15 and 20 Southern Floors employees were working 
in the aisle on a number of tasks associated with the tiling 
process at the time of the accident.  Although Max-Yeboah 
testified at trial that he was not aware that work was being 
performed on the floors when he entered the aisle, he was 
aware that work associated with the remodeling of the store 
was occurring throughout the store. 
 
Max-Yeboah entered the aisle where the tile work was 
occurring to get some frozen food.  He testified at trial that 
he did not see the stack of tiles he eventually tripped over, 
although he had walked past them on his way into the aisle, 
because he was looking at a freezer case for frozen food.  
While Max-Yeboah was standing in front of the freezer case, a 
Southern Floors employee told Max-Yeboah to "go back" because 
he was standing in the glue which was not yet dry.  Max-Yeboah 
alleges that the man yelled at him and pointed which led Max-
Yeboah to believe that something was falling toward him.  At 
trial, the employee recalled addressing Max-Yeboah but did not 
 
2
recall yelling.  In response to the instruction from the 
Southern Floors employee, Max-Yeboah turned quickly to exit 
the aisle, tripped over a foot-high stack of tiles placed next 
to the freezer unit, and broke his ankle. 
 
Max-Yeboah filed suit against both Southern Floors and 
Food Lion.  At trial, the jury was given conflicting 
instructions.  One instruction provided that "[a] person who 
hires an independent contractor is not liable for his 
actions."  The jury was also instructed that, "where the owner 
of the premises had control and oversight at the site where 
work was being done by the contractor, he is responsible for 
the negligent actions of an independent contractor." 
The trial court overruled Food Lion's objection to the 
latter instruction.  The jury returned a verdict for Max-
Yeboah, finding Food Lion and Southern Floors jointly and 
severally liable and awarding Max-Yeboah damages in the amount 
of $30,000.  Food Lion and Southern Floors appeal the 
judgments adverse to them. 
II.  Analysis 
A.  Contributory Negligence 
Southern Floors and Food Lion maintain on appeal that the 
trial court should have held that Max-Yeboah was 
contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the tiles 
that he tripped over were an open and obvious condition, which 
 
3
he noticed or should have noticed when he initially entered 
the aisle.  They maintain that Max-Yeboah tripped over the 
tiles because he failed to be reasonably aware of his 
surroundings.  Max-Yeboah contends that he was distracted by 
the yelling and pointing by the Southern Floors employee and 
that these special circumstances excused his failure to see 
the tiles. 
 
When a plaintiff is injured by an open and obvious 
defect, it is his burden "to show conditions outside of 
himself which prevented him seeing the defect or which would 
excuse his failure to observe it . . . .  When they do not 
exist the law charges the party with failure to do what was 
required of him."  City of South Norfolk v. Dail, 187 Va. 495, 
505, 47 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1948); see also Hill v. City of 
Richmond, 189 Va. 576, 584, 53 S.E.2d 810, 813 (1949).  
However, "more is needed than a simple allegation of a 
distraction to create a jury issue.  It [is] necessary for 
[the] plaintiff to establish that his excuse for inattention 
was reasonable, i.e., that the distraction was unexpected and 
substantial."  West v. City of Portsmouth, 217 Va. 734, 737, 
232 S.E.2d 763, 765 (1977). 
 
While the one-foot high stack of tiles Max-Yeboah tripped 
over was clearly an open and obvious hazard, Max-Yeboah 
offered evidence of an extrinsic condition, in the form of the 
 
4
Southern Floors employee's yelling and pointing to excuse his 
inattention.  If believed, the condition was unexpected, 
placed him in fear of bodily harm, and constituted a 
substantial distraction.  Determining the credibility and the 
weight of the evidence is the province of the finder of fact, 
in this case, the jury.  Therefore, the question of Max-
Yeboah's contributory negligence was properly submitted to the 
jury.  The trial court did not err in refusing to hold that 
Max-Yeboah was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. 
B. Liability of Food Lion 
 
Food Lion maintains that, even if Max-Yeboah is not 
contributorily negligent, Food Lion cannot be held liable 
because its employees were not involved in the work, it had no 
duty to supervise an independent contractor, and it had no 
actual or constructive notice of the defect.  Further, Food 
Lion argues that the trial court erred in giving conflicting 
and irreconcilable instructions to the jury on this issue.  We 
agree. 
Southern Floors was clearly an independent contractor.  
As we have previously stated, "An independent contractor is one 
who undertakes to produce a given result without being in any 
way controlled as to the method by which he attains that 
result."  Craig v. Doyle, 179 Va. 526, 531, 19 S.E.2d 675, 677 
(1942). 
 
5
If under the contract the party for whom 
the work is being done may prescribe not only 
what the result shall be, but also direct the 
means and methods by which the other shall do 
the work, the former is an employer, and the 
latter an employee. But if the former may 
specify the result only, and the latter may 
adopt such means and methods as he chooses to 
accomplish that result, then the latter is not 
an employee, but an independent contractor. 
Craig, 179 Va. at 531, 19 S.E.2d at 677; MacCoy v. Colony 
House Builders, 239 Va. 64, 67-68, 387 S.E.2d 760, 762 (1990). 
In cases involving liability of owners of property for 
injuries to third parties arising from conditions on the 
premises caused by independent contractors, the possible 
theories of recovery include vicarious liability of the owner 
for the acts of the independent contractor,1 and independent 
liability for the separate negligence of the owner. 
                     
1 The general rule regarding liability of an owner of 
property for the negligence of an independent contractor has 
been clearly stated: “As a general rule, an owner who employs 
an independent contractor is not liable for injuries to third 
persons caused by the contractor's negligence.” Kesler v. 
Allen, 233 Va. 130, 134, 353 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1987), C & P 
Telephone Company v. Properties One, 247 Va. 136, 140-41, 439 
S.E.2d 369, 372 (1994). In Kesler, we noted: 
Exceptions exist, and the doctrine of 
respondeat superior may become applicable, if 
the independent contractor's torts arise 
directly out of his use of a dangerous 
instrumentality, arise out of work that is 
inherently dangerous, are wrongful per se, are 
a nuisance, or are such that it would in the 
natural course of events produce injury unless 
special precautions were taken. Broaddus v. 
Standard Drug Co., 211 Va. 645, 649, 179 S.E.2d 
497, 501 (1971); N. & W. Railway v. Johnson, 
 
6
Initially, we note that Food Lion moved to dismiss Max-
Yeboah's claim of vicarious liability of Food Lion for the 
negligent acts of Southern Floors.  The trial court granted 
the motion and, in a pretrial order, dismissed all claims of 
vicarious liability from the case.  In its order, the trial 
court held that "[t]his dismissal shall have no effect on 
plaintiff's general negligence claims against Food Lion."  
With the claim of vicarious liability removed from the case, 
the only claim remaining against Food Lion was for its alleged 
independent liability for separate negligence in "failing to 
see that proper warnings and safety conditions existed at the 
scene of the work." 
 
Curiously, and over the objection of Food Lion, the trial 
court instructed the jury that Food Lion could be held 
"responsible for the negligent actions of an independent 
contractor."  It was error to instruct the jury on a claim 
that had been removed from the case. 
 
On appeal, most of Max-Yeboah's argument concerning 
liability of Food Lion is stated in terms of vicarious 
                                                                
207 Va. 980, 983-84, 154 S.E.2d 134, 137 
(1967); Smith Adm'r. v. Grenadier, 203 Va. 740, 
747, 127 S.E.2d 107, 112 (1962); Ritter Corp. 
v. Rose, 200 Va. 736, 742, 107 S.E.2d 479, 483 
(1959). 
Kesler, 233 Va. at 134, 353 S.E.2d at 780. None of the 
enumerated exceptions exist in this case. 
 
7
liability, a claim removed from the case prior to trial.2 
However, Max-Yeboah does argue that our decisions in Love v. 
Schmidt, 239 Va. 357, 389 S.E.2d 707 (1990), and Kesler v. 
Allen, 233 Va. 134, 353 S.E.2d 777 (1987) together support the 
liability of Food Lion under the facts of this case and the 
issues remaining at trial. 
 
Our holding in Kesler was explicit: "We hold that a 
landlord, in the absence of one of the exceptions to the 
general rule, has no vicarious liability to a tenant for the 
negligence of an independent contractor in making repairs or 
improvements."  Id. at 134, 353 S.E.2d at 780.  Kesler dealt 
with vicarious liability, not independent liability of the 
owner of property.  It has no application to this case. 
 
In Love, the plaintiff was injured when she fell off a 
loose toilet seat.  We affirmed the judgment against the 
landlord-owner, holding that "if a duty to maintain a premises 
in a safe condition is imposed by contract or by law, it 
cannot be delegated to an independent contractor."  Love, 239 
Va. at 357, 360-61, 389 S.E.2d at 709.  Unlike circumstances 
involving discrete and isolated repair and improvement, the 
work at issue in Love involved regular and routine 
                     
2 For example, Max-Yeboah states on brief, "The issue of 
Food Lion's responsibility for the negligence of Southern 
Floors . . . was an issue for the jury," and "[t]he jury was 
 
8
maintenance, repair, and janitorial services.  We 
characterized the owner's arguments against imposition of 
liability as "an attempt to delegate the landlord's common-law 
duty to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition." 
Id. at 361, 389 S.E.2d at 710. 
 
With regard to Food Lion's independent liability to Max-
Yeboah, the jury was properly instructed that: 
An occupant of the premises has the duty to an invitee: 
1. 
To use ordinary care to have the premises 
in a reasonably safe condition for an 
invitee's use consistent with the 
invitation; but an occupant does not 
guarantee an invitee's safety; and 
2. 
To use ordinary care to warn an invitee of any 
unsafe condition which the occupant knows, or by the 
use of ordinary care should know, about; except that 
an occupant has no duty to warn an invitee of an 
unsafe condition which is open and obvious to a 
person using ordinary care for his own safety. 
3. 
If an occupant fails to perform either or both of 
these duties, then he is negligent. 
 
 
Food Lion argues correctly that Max-Yeboah presented no 
evidence that Food Lion had either actual or constructive 
notice of the alleged hazard, the stack of tiles.  It is hard 
to imagine that Food Lion could have known about the tiles 
because the work was ongoing and the conditions in the aisle 
were constantly changing. 
                                                                
correct in finding Food Lion, Inc. responsible for the 
negligence of its contractor." 
 
9
 
Additionally, Max-Yeboah argues that Food Lion 
negligently failed to supervise Southern Floors in its work. 
Southern Floors was a subcontractor of a general contractor 
with whom Food Lion had contracted for store renovations.  
Southern Floors was neither selected nor actually supervised 
by Food Lion.  As previously noted, Southern Floors was an 
independent contractor.  It is illogical and antithetical to 
the definition of an independent contractor to impose a duty 
to supervise upon the principal when the essence of the 
relationship is lack of power and control to supervise.  Food 
Lion had no duty to supervise the means and method of the work 
of Southern Floors and cannot be found independently negligent 
for failing to do so.  MacCoy 239 Va. at 69, 387 S.E.2d at 
762; Craig, 179 Va. at 531, 19 S.E.2d at 677. 
III.  Conclusion 
 
We hold that the question of Max-Yeboah’s contributory 
negligence was properly submitted to the jury and the trial 
court did not err in refusing to hold that he was 
contributorily negligent as a matter of law.  However, the 
trial court did err in its instruction to the jury that Food 
Lion could be held liable for the negligence of Southern 
Floors.  Further, we hold that Food Lion is not independently 
negligent because it did not have a duty to supervise Southern 
Floors in its means and method of work, nor did Food Lion have 
 
10
actual or constructive knowledge of the stack of tiles in the 
aisle.  Accordingly, the judgment against Southern Floors will 
be affirmed and the judgment against Food Lion will be 
reversed. 
Affirmed in part,
reversed in part, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 final judgment.
 
11