Title: BOYER v KLOEPFER

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13195 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 MELVIN BOYER, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - RICHARD KLOEPFER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Michael J. Whalen argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson & Gallagher, B i l l i n g s , Montana H. Elwood English argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: A p r i l 22, 1976 C ~ e c i d e d : ., ;i ... 13, Filed : Hon. R. D. McPhillips, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison, delivered the Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f appeals from an order of the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, granting summary judgment t o defendant. The f a c t s a r e e s s e n t i a l l y undisputed. P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s action i n the d i s t r i c t court t o recover damages f o r i n j u r i e s sustained by him when he f e l l from a scaffold. Both p l a i n t i f f and defendant made a motion f o r summary judgment on the grounds there was no genuine issue a s t o any material f a c t on the question of l i a b i l i t y . The t r i a l court granted summary judgment t o defendant Richard Kloepfer. P l a i n t i f f , Melvin Boyer, appealed. P l a i n t i f f and appellant hereafter s h a l l be referred t o a s Boyer and defendant and respondent a s Kloepf e r . Kloepfer is a masonry contractor. He bid a job a t Eastern Montana College against one Earl Williams. Williams had the low bid and received the contract t o do the masonry m r k . Williams then hired Kloepfer a s h i s masonry foreman f o r the college job. I n addition, Williams and Kloepfer entered i n t o a r e n t a l agree- ment whereby Kloepfer was t o furnish equipment, including scaf- folding, upon the job f o r $3,500. The scaffold furnished by Kloepfer included planking, scaffold jacks, braces, scaffold brackets and other equipment necessary t o do the masonry work a t Eastern Montana College. Kloepfer' s job a s Williams ' foreman included hiring hod c a r r i e r s and brick layers a s well a s generally supervising a l l the masonry work on behalf of Williams. On May 22, 1972, while working a s an employee of Williams on the Eastern Montana College job, Boyer was pushing a wheel- barrow f u l l of wet concrete along the scaffold and while going up an incline thereon which had a plywood f l o o r and was unstable, the weight of the wheelbarrow s h i f t e d , gushed him backwards off the scaffolding, and he f e l l t o the ground approximately 13 f e e t below. The wheelbarrow f u l l of wet cement followed him off the scaffold and landed d i r e c t l y upon Boyer's back causing severe injury . I n the area where Boyer f e l l t o the ground, there were no X braces, guardrails o r kickboards. A guardrail may have pre- vented h i s f a l l and kickboards may have prevented the wheelbarrow f u l l of wet concrete from f a l l i n g on him. Three issues a r e presented: 1. Under the f a c t s and circumstances of t h i s case is Kloepfer l i a b l e t o Boyer under the Scaffold Act? 2. Under the f a c t s and circumstances of t h i s case is 1947 Kloepfer l i a b l e t o Boyer under section 92-204, R.c.M/, of t h e Workmen's Compensation Act? 3. Were any genuine issues of material f a c t present so a s t o preclude the t r i a l court from entering summary judgment herein? Dealing with the f i r s t issue t h i s Court i n S t a t e ex r e l . Great F a l l s National Bank v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 336, 343, 463 P.2d 326, stated: "* * * against whom is the injured workman e n t i t l e d t o recover? O r s t a t e d another way, who owes the basic duty imposed by the Scaffold Act? W e must look t o the Scaffold Act i t s e l f t o determine t h e answer t o t h i s question. Section 69-1402, R.C.M. 1947, imposes a duty on ' every owner, person, o r corporation -who- s h a l l have- the d i r e c t and immediate supervision o r control of the construc- t i o n o r remodeling of any building having more than three framed floors' t o provide a temporary planked f l o o r 'which s h a l l be l a i d t o form a good s u b s t a n t i a l temporary floor f o r the protection of employees and a l l persons engaged above o r below, o r on such temporary f l o o r i n such building.' (Emphasis supplied.) firm "Section 69-1404, R.C.M. 1947, provides that 'It - s h a l l be the duty of a l l owners, contractors, builders, or persons having the direct and immediate control or supervision of any buildings' under construction to protect stairways, elevator openings, flues, and a l l other openings i n the floors. (Emphasis supplied.) "In our view neither the language nor the purpose of the Scaffold Act suggests any intention by the legislature t o grant multiple remedies or damages t o injured workmen by granting one recovery against the landowner, another recovery against the general con- tractor, a third recovery against the subcontractor using the scaffolding, and so on ad infinitum. O n the contrary it is clear t o us from the language of the Act construed i n the light of i t s purpose that the legislature intended only t o make the injured workman whole by granting him r e l i e f t o the extent of h i s injuries and damages against the person, firm or corporation having direct and immediate control of the work involving the use of scaffolding." It i s clear t h i s Court has previously determined the person, corporation having direct and immediate control of the work involving the use of scaffolding is the one upon which a duty i s imposed by the Scaffold Act. Kloepfer was i n immediate control of the work that involved the use of scaffolding, but he exercised that control as the foreman of Earl Williams Masonry. There is absolutely no dispute from the record that Kloepfer was anything other than Earl Williams Masonry's foreman. Kloepfer was paid an hourly wage by Williams; he hired brick layers and hod carriers on Williams' behalf; he did not share i n any profits from the job; he was instructed by Williams on how Williams wished the job t o be done; nothing suggests Kloepfer was anything other than an Earl Williams Masonry employee. Kloepfer cannot be held liable under the Scaffold Act as he acted simply as Williams' employee and not an owner, person o r corporation,who had direct and immediate super- vision and control of the masonry construction. Second, can Kloepfer be held l i a b l e under the provisions of section 92-204, as amended i n 1969, since repealed and replaced 1947 by section 92-204.1, R.C.M./which allowed a fellow workman t o be held liable when the injuries of any employee, I t * * * are caused by the intentional and malicious act or omission of a servant or employee of h i s employer * * *.It I n t h i s connection, Boyer had the following t o say in h i s deposition: "Q. Did Dick Kloepfer have anything t o do with the erection of the scaffold that you f e l l off of? A. I don't know for sure. A l l I know, it was h i s scaffolding. "Q. It was h i s scaffolding, you say? A. Yeh. Q . Did Dick Kloepfer have anything t o do with removing or putting any braces on that scaffold? That you know of. A . Well, I haven't seen anybody do anything with it. You know, I haven't seen Dick do anything with it. "Q. D o you have any reason t o hold Dick Kloepfer per- sonally responsible for what happened t o you? A. (No response. ) "Q. That you know of. A. Well, I can't * * * I t ' s * * * no, I have nothing personal against him. "Q. D o you have any reason to believe that he has anything personal against you? A. No. Q . Did you get along with him okay? A. Yes. "Q. Would you say your relationship was a good one? A. Yes, I ' d say it was. I I The scaffolding i n t h i s case was rented by Earl Williams Masonry from Kloepfer, a fact which i s undisputed. In t h i s regard Kloepfer t e s t i f i e d i n h i s deposition: "Q. And as a part of t h i s agreement to rent equipment t o him, was it understood that you would maintain and i n s t a l l the equipment on the job? A. No, there was nothing along that line. "Q. Well, a s a part of that agreement did you i n fact maintain the equipment upon the job and i n s t a l l the scaffolding, for example? A. No, I didn't maintain it or - Earl Williams did any maintaining or anything like that that had t o do. Like he bought the gasoline. H e provided any of the expenses. It was h i s job. "Q. And a s the owner of that equipment, and parti- cularly the scaffolding that you had rented to Earl Williams, did you oversee the erection of it? A. Well, I would say t h i s , that I was h i s foreman on the job. It was m y job to see that everything was done as f a r as the masonry work was concerned. I had hod carriers hired and I had brick layers hired. Those are the two people that I worked with o r dealt with. They were under m y control. The hod c a r r i e r ' s job is to, basically, f i r s t of a l l , when there i s a masonry job t o be done they move the equipment onto the job, they put the material in the position where the bricklayer can get up - that includes the brick, the block, the mortar - they do the setting up of a l l t h i s various equipment and materials t o proceed with the masonry work. The hod carriers - "Q. But as I understand your testimony, you were i n immediate charge of setting t h i s job up insofar as super- visory responsibility i s concerned, i s n ' t that correct? A. Yes. A foreman is, I would say, responsible for building the job the best way he knows how." The record further discloses that when t h i s unfortunate accident took place, Kloepfer was not a t the job s i t e . Kloepfer, as foreman for Earl Williams, had the responsi- b i l i t y for construction, erection and maintenance of the scaffolding. N o malice or intent t o harm has been shown and Boyer concedes that h i s relationship with Kloepfer was always a good one. There i s no evidence t o the contrary so the condi- tions under which a workman could sue a co-worker i n t o r t under section 92-204, R.C.M. 1947, are not satisfied. The third issue, did the t r i a l court e r r i n granting Kloepf e r ' s mot ion for summary judgment? Boyer contends he was not the fellow employee of Kloepfer insofar as the furnishing of the scaffolding for the job i s concerned. That having been furnished under a separate agreement between Williams and Kloepfer, and that h i s failure t o provide X braces, guardrails and kickboards a t the point Boyer f e l l off the scaffold made Kloepfer liable t o Boyer or a t l e a s t created an issue of fact. Rule 56(c), Montana Rules Civil Procedure, provides, i n t e r a l i a : "The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith i f the pleadings, depositions, answers t o interroga- tories and admissions on f i l e show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party i s entitled t o a judgment as a matter of law." The complaint contains no allegation of a duty on the part of Kloepfer t o provide a l l the safety mechanisms that are normally required with scaffolding. The responsibility t o pro- vide such equipment i s that of Earl Williams Masonry who was the contractor having the direct and immediate control of the building under construction, section 69-1404, R.C.M. 1947. A s a matter of law the Scaffold Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are inapplicable t o the claim involved under the undisputed facts of t h i s case. There is no theory of the law pleaded that would allow recovery of any damages by Boyer as against Kloepfer. The trial court did not e r r i n granting Kloepfer' s motion for summary judgment. The judgment of the t r i a l court is affirmed. I Hon. R. D. McPhillips, District Judge, s i t t i n g for Chief Justice James T. Harrison. We Concur: L J 8 Justices. Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting: I would vacate the order of summary judgment in view of the fact that testimony indicates that Kloepfer removed part of the scaffolding equipment and put it on a job he was operating as a scaffolding contractor. 'us t