Opinion ID: 2635224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to PRECorp's liability for its own negligence?

Text: [¶ 19] Cornelius alleges that, in addition to being vicariously liable for Baldwin's negligence, PRECorp is also directly liable for its own negligence. Cornelius's argument may be summarized as follows: 1. The owner's duty to an employee of a contractor working on the premises is the duty to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances to protect that employee from foreseeable dangers. Franks, 2004 WY 97, ¶ 16, 96 P.3d at 492. 2. Ultrahazardous activities create a nondelegable duty on the part of the owner to maintain a safe workplace. Id. 3. Any duty voluntarily assumed by PRECorp must be performed with reasonable care, even if no duty otherwise existed. Valance v. VI-Doug., Inc., 2002 WY 113, ¶ 15, 50 P.3d 697, 703 (Wyo.2002). 4. PRECorp trained its own crews, and inspected its own equipment, but did not do the same for Baldwin's crews and equipment, even though it retained control over Baldwin's work. 5. PRECorp was negligent in not shutting Baldwin's work down immediately upon learning of Baldwin's deficiencies, rather than merely calling the meeting of February 21, 2002. [¶ 20] The district court's decision letter paid more detailed attention to the allegation of vicarious liability than it did to the allegation of direct liability. Nevertheless, it did identify the above legal principles before reaching the following conclusion: The court acknowledges that working with electricity is an ultrahazardous endeavor. Therefore, PRECorp owes a greater duty of care than simply what would be reasonable under all the circumstances, the oft-cited basic standard of care for premises liability in Wyoming. Here, however, there was nothing inherently faulty with the PRECorp power line. Instead, it was a deficiency (or multiple deficiencies) in the equipment provided to [Cornelius] by [Baldwin] and/or failure on the part of [Cornelius] himself that led to [Cornelius's] injuries. [¶ 21] PRECorp had no affirmative duty toward Cornelius that it breached. There is no allegation that PRECorp's premises were unsafe. PRECorp did not control the method and manner of work performed by Baldwin, and PRECorp did not voluntarily assume any safety duties. Cornelius's injuries were caused by his own lack of care, and/or by Baldwin's failure to provide safe equipment.