Case Title: Abraham v. Andrews Trucking Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 94-34

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Abraham v. Andrews Trucking Co.1995 WY 60893 P.2d 1156Case Number: 94-34Decided: 04/28/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Trisha ABRAHAM, as Personal Representative of the Estate of 
Brent Abraham, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

ANDREWS TRUCKING COMPANY, a sole proprietorship, 
Appellee (Defendant).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Park County, H. Hunter Patrick, 
J.

Robert W. Tiedeken of Wolf 
& Tiedeken, Cheyenne, and Michael McCarty of McCarty, Cranfill & 
Sommers, Cody, for 
appellant.

Harold E. Meier and Jonathan 
A. Botten of Lonabaugh & Riggs, Sheridan, for appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      In this wrongful 
death action, appellant seeks relief from a grant of summary judgment in favor 
of appellee. The dispositive issue is whether appellee owed a legal duty to the 
decedent. In addition, we will address the allocation of costs upon summary 
judgment.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellant states 
the issues as:

1. Did the trial court err in granting summary 
judgment to appellee Andrews Trucking Company?

2. What is the proper standard for the award of 
costs, if any, in a case decided by summary judgment?

[¶3]      Appellee restates 
the issues:

1. Given the facts particular to this case, did 
appellee Andrews Trucking Company owe a legal duty to Brent Abraham, an employee 
of subcontractor Kobbe Construction Partnership, to maintain a safe work 
place?

2. Were costs properly awarded to appellee Andrews 
Trucking Company following the grant of summary judgment by the trial 
court?

II. 
FACTS

[¶4]      On November 15, 
1991, Brent Abraham (the deceased) was overcome by poisonous hydrogen sulfide 
gas while emptying a vacuum truck into Battery No. 18 in the Elk Basin Oil 
Field, a field operated by Amoco Production Company (Amoco). At the time, the 
deceased was employed by Kobbe Construction Company (Kobbe Construction). Kobbe 
Construction provided roustabout services for Amoco in the Elk Basin Oil 
Field.

[¶5]      Ray Kobbe 
operated Kobbe Construction. His brother, Randy Kobbe, was employed by Amoco as 
a supervisor in the Elk Basin Oil Field. To avoid Amoco's anti-nepotism policy, 
the Kobbe brothers enlisted Andrews Trucking Company (Andrews Trucking) as a 
straw man. Andrews Trucking signed a service contract with Amoco and entered 
into an oral agreement with Kobbe Construction to have Kobbe Construction 
fulfill the terms of the service contract. Andrews Trucking was paid five 
percent on each invoice billed to Amoco for the work Kobbe Construction 
performed in the Elk Basin Oil Field. Federal regulations required Andrews 
Trucking to formulate a safety policy or adopt Amoco's. Andrews Trucking adopted 
Amoco's safety manual.

[¶6]      Following the 
death of her husband, Trisha Abraham (Abraham) filed a wrongful death claim 
against Andrews Trucking, Amoco, and Ray Kobbe. The claims against Ray Kobbe 
were dismissed on October 7, 1993. Abraham settled with Amoco and Amoco was 
dismissed from the case.

[¶7]      Andrews Trucking 
filed a motion for summary judgment on September 15, 1993. Following a hearing, 
the district court granted Andrews Trucking's motion for summary judgment. 
Andrews Trucking then filed an application for costs to which Abraham objected. 
Costs were awarded to Andrews Trucking and Abraham filed a timely notice of 
appeal.

III. 
DISCUSSION

JOB SITE SAFETY

[¶8]      Summary judgment 
is not normally favored in negligence cases. MacKrell v. Bell H2S Safety, 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo. 1990). However, if the record fails to reveal any disputed 
issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law, summary judgment is proper, even in a negligence case. Id. Whether a 
defendant owes a plaintiff a legal duty is a question of law which is reviewed 
de novo. Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890, 894 (Wyo. 1986) (quoting 
W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 37 at 236 
(1984)).

[¶9]      The issue before 
us is whether Andrews Trucking assumed any affirmative duties with respect to 
job site safety at Amoco wells serviced by Kobbe Construction. Ordinarily, an 
employer or general contractor is not liable for the negligence of an 
independent contractor. Cockburn v. Terra Resources, Inc., 794 P.2d 1334, 1342 
(Wyo. 1990). However, a general contractor who retains control over the manner 
in which work is performed, or assumes affirmative duties regarding job site 
safety, owes the employees of his independent contractors a duty of reasonable 
care and will be liable if that duty is breached. Id.

[¶10]   The specific question raised in 
this case is whether Andrews Trucking assumed any control over affirmative 
safety duties under the well service agreement. Abraham contends that the Amoco 
safety manual, adopted by Andrews Trucking, imposed affirmative safety duties on 
Andrews Trucking and that the failure to fulfill those duties renders Andrews 
Trucking liable for the deceased's death. The adoption of a safety manual is but 
one aspect of the analysis regarding the question of whether a general 
contractor has assumed affirmative safety duties at a particular job site. See, 
Jones, 718 P.2d  at 896 (quoting Moloso v. State, 644 P.2d 205, 211-12 (Alaska 
1982)). Existence of such a safety manual is not the keystone in this analysis. 
Whether the duties were actually exercised by Andrews Trucking in the field is 
also a relevant consideration. Id. In fact, Andrews Trucking never actually 
performed any safety duties in the field or elsewhere.

[¶11]   We hold that Andrews Trucking never 
assumed any affirmative duties regarding job site safety and, therefore, did not 
owe the deceased a legal duty. Because there were no material issues of fact in 
dispute, the decision to grant summary judgment is 
affirmed.

ALLOCATION 
OF COSTS

[¶12]   The award of costs pursuant to 
W.R.C.P. 54(d) rests within the sound discretion of the district court. 
Hashimoto v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 767 P.2d 158, 168 (Wyo. 1989). "Abuse of 
discretion occurs when a court exceeds the bounds of reason or commits an error 
of law." Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 
1993).

[¶13]   In Hashimoto, 767 P.2d  at 169, we 
held that costs which are reasonably required for trial preparation may be 
awarded when a bill of costs is filed with the court following trial. The rule 
is equally applicable to summary judgment proceedings and, therefore, we hold 
that the district court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, award 
costs following a successful motion for summary judgment.

[¶14]   The costs awarded, however, must be 
those reasonably required in the preparation of the successful motion for 
summary judgment. Id. The fact that no trial was held is no reason for 
disallowing costs. Curacao Trading Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., 3 F.R.D. 261, 262 
(S.D.N.Y. 1942). Since the district court awarded costs it assumed were 
reasonably required for trial preparation, rather than those reasonably required 
for the preparation of the successful summary judgment motion, this case must be 
remanded for further proceedings to determine the proper 
costs.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶15]   The decision of the district court 
is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion.