Opinion ID: 2184956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligent Performance of Contract

Text: Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in refusing to find that Rogers's actions fell within an exception to the doctrine of acquired immunity, because it was negligent in the performance of the contract. Specifically, Appellants claim that Rogers was contractually obligated to warn AHTD and the public of any errors in the specifications, and it failed to fulfill this duty. As such, Appellants assert that Rogers negligently performed the contract. We disagree. Appellants' argument on this point is based entirely on the affidavit of Garrett, the engineer who prepared the particular mix of Type 3 asphalt that was used on this project. According to Garrett's affidavit, which we must view in a light most favorable to Appellants, Garrett spoke with a quality-control employee of Rogers and warned that Type 3 asphalt should never be used on an overlay project on such a high-volume highway. Garrett also stated that the employee indicated to him that he was aware that Type 3 asphalt was never designed for that type of application. Based on this information, Appellants argue that Rogers had a duty to warn AHTD of the danger in using Type 3 asphalt on this project. Appellants argue further that Rogers's duty to warn arose out of its contract with AHTD. They specifically rely on section 105.05 of the AHTD's 1993 edition of its Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, which provides: The Contractor shall take no advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, and shall immediately notify the Engineer of any such errors or omissions discovered. The Engineer will then make such corrections and interpretations as may be deemed necessary for fulfilling the intent of the plans and specifications. Appellants contend that the information conveyed by Garrett fell within the category of an error or omission in the plans or specifications for the job. Appellants argue that by failing to convey the information received from Garrett, Rogers was negligent in its contractual duties to AHTD. Appellants argue further that the trial court erred in placing so much emphasis on McMillian's affidavit regarding the effect that any warning would have had on AHTD. Appellants rely on this court's holding in Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228, 843 S.W.2d 807 (1992), to support their argument that had a warning been given by Rogers to AHTD, there is a presumption that such warning would have been heeded. Appellants also argue that Bushong supports their claim that an issue of fact remains for the jury as to whether Rogers sufficiently rebutted the presumption. In Bushong , this court held: Once a plaintiff proves the lack of an adequate warning or instruction, a presumption arises that the user would have read and heeded adequate warnings or instructions. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence which persuades the trier of fact that an adequate warning or instruction would have been futile under the circumstances. Safeco Ins. Co. [ v. Baker ], 515 So.2d 655, 657 (La.Ct.App.1987); See also Johnson v. Niagara, 666 F.2d 1223 (8th Cir.1981). In this case, appellant himself admitted that he had never read a label on a cleaning product during the three years he worked at Stewart Electric. Given this, we cannot say the trial court erred in finding appellant's failure to read the label precluded his claim as any warning or instruction would have been futile since appellant would not have read it. Id. at 234, 843 S.W.2d at 811. Here, the presumption was rebutted by McMillian's affidavit, which demonstrates that such a warning would have fallen on deaf ears and would not have altered the contract specifications. McMillian's affidavit reflects: 8. The Department selected Type III asphalt. The selection of Type III asphalt was made based upon a determination that it was suitable and appropriate for Job R80087. Since its application, Type III asphalt has performed satisfactorily on Highway 65. 9. Had Rogers Group employees advised the Department that they were supposedly informed that Type III was not suitable for this job, we would have informed them that Type III was suitable and would have directed that work continue using Type III asphalt. [Emphasis added.] Appellants have provided no proof to the contrary. Thus, there is no issue of fact for the jury to decide. Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to meet proof with proof when summary judgment is sought. That rule provides in pertinent part: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. [Emphasis added.] Appellants have offered no proof, through affidavits or otherwise, to contradict McMillian's affidavit. We disagree with Appellants that this is an issue of credibility for the jury. This is merely an issue of proof, with the undisputed proof showing that AHTD would not have heeded any warning Rogers could have made regarding the use of Type 3 asphalt on the project in question. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that Rogers was not negligent in the performance of its contract with AHTD by failing to warn the agency about using Type 3 asphalt on the overlay project. We likewise affirm the trial court's conclusion that Rogers was not negligent in failing to warn the public of the dangers of Type 3 asphalt. Appellants' reliance on section 107.01(b) of AHTD's Standard Specifications is misplaced. That section merely places a burden on the contractor to take steps to ensure the public's safety while the contract work is being performed. That section provides in pertinent part: The Contractor shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws governing safety, health, and sanitation. The Contractor shall provide safeguards, safety devices, and protective equipment and take any other needed action necessary to protect the life and health of employees on the job and the safety of the public and to protect property in connection with the performance of the work covered by the Contract. [Emphasis added.] We agree with Rogers that this provision pertains to the contractor's safety obligations while the work is being performed. We do not view this section as creating a generalized duty to warn the public of dangers that may arise out of the sovereign's plans or specifications for the job. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to Rogers, as it was not negligent in the performance of its contract with AHTD.