Title: Marzec-Gerrior v. D.C.P. Industries, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

MARZEC-GERRIOR_V_DCP_INDUSTRIES.94-369; 164 Vt 569; 674 A.2d 1248

[Opinion Filed 15-Dec-1995]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 17-Jan-1996]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 94-369


Lawrence Marzec-Gerrior and                       Supreme Court
Mary Marzec-Gerrior
                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Addison Superior Court

D.C.P. Industries, Inc. and                       June Term, 1995
David Peterson, d/b/a D.C.P.
Industries, Inc.

     v.

Joseph P. Carrara, Inc.


Edward J. Cashman, J.

       Allan R. Keyes of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for
  plaintiffs-appellants Lisa Chalidze and Karen A. Kalter of Hull, Webber &
  Reis, Rutland, for defendants-appellees/ cross-appellants
  
       James C. Foley, Jr. of Deppman & Foley, P.C., Middlebury, for
  third-party defendant-cross-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


       ALLEN, C.J.   Plaintiff Lawrence Marzec-Gerrior was injured when a
  concrete slab dropped from a crane.   He instituted this action for damages
  against the defendant crane operator, which, in turn, brought a third-party
  complaint against plaintiff's employer.  Plaintiff Mary Marzec-Gerrior
  joined to recover for the loss of consortium of her husband.  Plaintiffs
  appeal from the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the
  verdict following an adverse jury verdict.  We affirm.

       The employer hired defendant and his crane to lift prestressed
  concrete slabs from a storage area in the employer's yard onto a flat-bed
  trailer for transportation to a location in New Hampshire.  The slabs were
  connected to slings hung from the crane's hook by "rigging" -- two

 

  bolts inserted into receptacles embedded in each end of the slab.  The
  bolts were inserted by employees of plaintiff's employer, and the accident
  occurred because one of the bolts had been screwed down only one or two
  turns rather than all the way into the insert.  Plaintiff was injured while
  guiding the slab onto the flat-bed trailer.

       On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial court should have directed
  a verdict for them, that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury,
  and that the court erred in denying a motion to amend their complaint.

       The motion for a directed verdict was based on a violation of a VOSHA
  regulation, which states:

          Moving the load  (i)  The employer shall assure that:
          . . .

         (b)  The load is well secured and properly balanced in the sling or
         lifting device before it is lifted more than a few inches.

   29 C.F.R. § 1910.180(h)(3)(i)(b).


       Plaintiffs contend that the fall of the slab is proof of the violation
  of the VOSHA regulation and that the violation created a presumption of
  negligence which was unrebutted, thereby warranting a directed verdict.  As
  we noted in Ball v. Melsur Corp., 161 Vt. 35,