Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08022/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08022-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kiewit Mining Group, Inc.
Appellee
Kiewit Mining and Engineering Company
Appellee
Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc.
Appellee
William H. Wayts
Appellant

Document Text:

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUN ~ ·, 1991 

WILLIAM H. WAYTS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PETER KIEWIT SONS, INC.; KIEWIT ) 

MINING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY; and ) 

KIEWIT MINING GROUP, INC., ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ll BE!l T L. I-IOECK.ER 

Clerk 

No. 90-8022 

(D.C. No. C89-217B) 

(D. Wyo.) 

Before TACHA, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff William H. Wayts appeals from an order of the 

district court granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in 

this diversity action. Plaintiff argues the district court erred 

in ruling that defendants did not exercise sufficient control over 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-8022 Document: 010110128224 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 1 
... 

safety aspects of their subsidiary's mining operations to hold 

defendants liable for injuries suffered by plaintiff. We affirm. 

Plaintiff was employed by Big Horn Coal Company (BHC), a 

wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Kiewit Mining Group, which is 

a wholly owned subsidiary of Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc. Kiewit 

Mining and Engineering Company was also a wholly owned subsidiary 

of Kiewit Mining Group, Inc. Kiewit Mining and Engineering 

Company is no longer a corporate entity. 

Plaintiff was injured when a grader operated by another BHC 

employee backed over a "baloney," the cable supplying power to an 

electric shovel. The shovel operator, also a BHC employee, was 

preparing to dump his load into a coal haul truck driven by 

plaintiff. When the grader backed over the baloney, the power to 

the shovel was "tripped" and the brakes controlling the shovel 

engaged. Because the loaded shovel bucket was already swinging, 

the brakes could not immediately stop the swing of the bucket and 

it struck the right rear corner of the truck, injuring plaintiff. 

Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendants 

exercised full control over workplace safety 

liable to plaintiff for failing to provide a 

Plaintiff alleged defendants permitted coal 

and, thus, were 

safe workplace. 

haul trucks to be 

loaded in an unsafe manner, failed to properly maintain the brakes 

on the shovel, and permitted inadequate marking of the baloney. 

The district court held that defendants had not exercised the 

amount of control necessary to allow the imposition of liability. 

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the 

materials on file "show that there is no genuine issue as to any 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-8022 Document: 010110128224 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 2 
.. 

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review the 

district court's ruling de novo. We "examine the factual record 

and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to 

the party opposing summary judgment". Applied Genetics Int'l, 

Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th 

Cir. 1990) . 

In Wyoming, a parent corporation's retention of an advisory 

role is not sufficient to impose liability. The parent 

corporation must exercise direct operational control over the 

activity in question, retaining the right to direct how the 

activity should or should not be done. See Fiscus v. Atlantic 

Richfield, 773 P.2d 158, 162-63 (Wyo. 1989)(site visitation, 

safety meeting attendance, and recommendation of safety 

precautions insufficient to raise inference of control); see also 

Jones v. Chevron U.S.A .• Inc., 718 P.2d 890, 896 (Wyo. 1986)(no 

control found where owner of work site retained the right to 

require that independent contractor observe safety rules, but did 

not assume any affirmative duties with respect to safety); Noonan 

v. Texaco, Inc., 713 P.2d 160, 166-67 (Wyo. 1986)(no control found 

where Texaco, owner of an oil well, retained a simple reservation 

of a right to inspect and require safe equipment, material, and 

supplies, but did not take over details of safety from its 

independent contractor who was drilling the well). 

In Fiscus, the plaintiff argued that the defendant retained 

sufficient control over the subsidiary's safety operations to 

permit the imposition of liability. Plaintiff cited to the fact 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-8022 Document: 010110128224 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 3 
that employees of the defendant visited the mine an average of 

four times a day, several of defendant's officials attended safety 

meetings at the mine, an employee of another subsidiary of the 

defendant sent a memorandum to the plaintiff's employer 

recommending the use of seat belts, and the defendant reviewed the 

qualifications of, and interviewed all, safety directors. 

Defendant also had two representatives at the mine who worked on 

the subsidiary's training program and set policy in regard to 

training at the mine. 

The court held that the parent corporation would be 

only if the parent assumed "some independent legal 

liable 

duty by 

retaining or exercising control over some aspect of the operation 

of [the] subsidiary corporation which was involved in the incident 

resulting in the plaintiff's injuries." Fiscus, 773 P.2d at 160. 

The court found no liability because the defendant had shown it 

"did not retain the right to control or exercise control over the 

safety aspects of the [subsidiary], over the mining operations, or 

over the scraper that [the plaintiff] operated at the time of her 

injuries. " Id. at 161. 

The evidence here showed that defendants' safety directors 

advised BHC regarding safety matters, injury prevention, and 

company-wide safety policies. Defendants prepared a safety manual 

in compliance with federal standards which was sent to BHC for it 

to adopt, modify, or reject. Employees visited BHC to monitor 

compliance with general company-wide safety policies and federal 

regulations and investigated all accidents. BHC, however, had its 

own safety program and safety director over which defendants had 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-8022 Document: 010110128224 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 4 
no direct authority. 

We agree with the district court that the record fails to 

show defendants exercised direct control over BHC's safety 

operation. Defendants' retention of an advisory role is not 

sufficient to permit the imposition of liability on them for 

plaintiff's injuries. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-8022 Document: 010110128224 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 5