Title: Peterson v. Fowler
Citation: 29 Utah 2d 366, 510 P.2d 523
Docket Number: 13011
State: Utah
Issuer: Utah Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 1973

510 P.2d 523 (1973) 29 Utah 2d 366 Pamela and Carla Jan PETERSON, Plaintiffs and Appellants, Industrial Indemnity Company, Plaintiff in Intervention and Appellant, v. Robert A. FOWLER, Timber Structures, Inc., Schmidt Steel, et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. 13011. Supreme Court of Utah. May 22, 1973. *524 Jackson B. Howard, of Howard &amp; Lewis, Provo, for plaintiffs and appellants. Wallace R. Lauchnor, of Bayle &amp; Lauchnor, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff in intervention and appellant. R.M. Child, of Ray, Quinney &amp; Nebeker, Salt Lake City, Richard W. Campbell, of Olmstead, Stine &amp; Campbell, Ogden, J. Anthony Eyre, of Kipp &amp; Christian, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents. ELLETT, Justice: This case was before us last year[1] on an appeal by the plaintiffs from a summary judgment in favor of the architect and Lauren Burt, Inc., wherein most of the facts of the case were set out. Additional facts material to this appeal will be supplied herein. A reading of the prior case will show that plaintiffs' decedent lost his life when a high suspended scaffold on which he was working broke, causing him and two others to fall. In the prior case this court sustained the summary judgment as to the architect, who had nothing to do with the erection or maintenance of the scaffold, and as to Lauren Burt, Inc., which was engaged at the time in the same employment as was the decedent. After that ruling was made, the other defendants made motions for summary judgments, urging that the deceased was engaged at the time of his death in the same employment as were all of the remaining *525 defendants. The trial court granted all motions, and the plaintiffs have again appealed. We thought that we clearly defined what was required to constitute "same employment" in the prior case. We there said:[2] The general contractor is immune from liability because of the provisions of our Workmen's Compensation Act. The defendant Timber Structures, Inc., was a subcontractor which placed the timbers in the dome of a large sports arena being constructed. The contractor requested it to insert certain eye-bolts in the hubs of the timbers as extra work. These bolts were inserted, and none of them fell out. Lauren Burt, Inc., was a subcontractor engaged in placing ceiling tile on the inside of the dome after Timber Structures, Inc., had completed its work. At the time of entering into the subcontract to place the tile in the dome, Lauren Burt, Inc., was told it could use the scaffold left by Timber Structures, Inc. However, by agreement with the general contractor, the beams of the dome were put in place without the use of a scaffold. Lauren Burt, Inc., then had to devise its own method of performing its work. It contacted the defendant Sky Climber, Inc., which manufactured a square platform that could be raised and lowered by means of wires placed through the eye-bolts in the dome. It tested one of the bolts and installed the unit and gave instructions as to how it was to be operated by the workmen who would be upon it. Sky Climber, Inc., directed the wire cables to be placed through the eye-bolts and then extended somewhat laterally to the walls of the arena. There was no particularly extra stress on the bolts while the work was being done near the wall, but as the scaffold was moved toward the center of the dome, the lateral stress would be increased. The result was that when the workers were near the center of the dome, one of the eye-bolts broke, causing the men who were upon it to fall to their deaths. Savage Scaffold and Equipment Company was the agent of Sky Climber, Inc., and simply a materialman to Lauren Burt, Inc. The employees of Lauren Burt, Inc., of their own accord remodeled the platform and changed it from a rectangular shape to a diamond shape and also erected a superstructure upon it so as to enable them to better perform their work. Sky Climber, Inc., had nothing to do with this remodeling job. Under the definition of "same employment" as set out in the prior decision herein, none of the respondents was in the "same employment" with the deceased. However, it does not necessarily follow that *526 the trial court's ruling should be reversed. It is our duty to sustain the rulings made if it can be done even though it be upon a matter not urged upon appeal.[3] A summary judgment should be given where there is no material issue of fact in dispute and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[4] Under the undisputed facts of this case we can see no negligence on the part of Timber Structures, Inc., or of Savage Scaffold and Equipment Co., Inc., and the summary judgment in their favor should be and it is hereby sustained. There are unresolved questions of negligence on the part of Sky Climber, Inc., and of contributory negligence or assumption of the risk on the part of the deceased, which matters should be determined at trial. The judgment is affirmed as to the defendants Timber Structures, Inc., and Savage Scaffold and Equipment Co., Inc., and reversed as to Sky Climber, Inc. Plaintiffs are entitled to costs as against Sky Climber, Inc. No other costs are awarded. CALLISTER, C.J., and TUCKETT, J., concur. HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur in the result. [1] Peterson v. Fowler, 27 Utah 2d 159, 493 P.2d 997. [2] 27 Utah 2d 163, 164, 493 P.2d 999. [3] Limb v. Federated Milk Producers Association, 23 Utah 2d 222, 461 P.2d 290 (1969). [4] Rule 56, U.R.C.P.