Opinion ID: 2099789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: duty to provide safe place to work

Text: In its determination that Sears owed no duty to provide Semler a safe place to work, the district court relied in part upon Ray v. Argos Corp., 259 Neb. 799, 612 N.W.2d 246 (2000). In Ray, we held: Generally, the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by the acts or omissions of the contractor or his servants. There are two recognized exceptions to the general rule. The employer of an independent contractor may be vicariously liable to a third party (1) if the employer retains control over the contractor's work or (2) if, by rule of law or statute, the employer has a nondelegable duty to protect another from harm caused by the contractor. 259 Neb. at 803, 612 N.W.2d at 249. Finding, inter alia, that [t]here is no evidence Sears retained control over Semler's work and further that no rule of law imposed a nondelegable duty upon Sears, the district court determined that no legal duty existed for Sears to protect Semler from injury. Semler contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in applying the rule set forth in Ray. Semler argues that the rule articulated in Ray applies to the issue of an employer's vicarious liability for the acts of an independent contractor resulting in injury to third persons, and not to the direct negligence of Sears in providing a defective ladder to Semler, which direct negligence was the issue presented by the pleadings. We concur that Ray does not apply in this circumstance. The pleadings in this case show that Semler is not contending that Sears is vicariously liable to him due to the acts of an independent contractor hired by Sears, over whom Sears retained control. Rather, the pleadings allege that Sears is liable to Semler for its direct negligence in providing a defective ladder for his use. As such, control of another is not the dispositive issue. Semler cites to Parrish v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 242 Neb. 783, 496 N.W.2d 902 (1993), asserting that Parrish provides the proper legal analysis. We disagree. In Parrish, the issue presented was once again vicarious liability. Specifically, the issue was whether the landowner, the Omaha Public Power District, retained sufficient control over the construction site to impose liability on the district for the alleged negligent acts of a subcontractor. It was in that context that we noted, as Semler argues, that an owner in control and possession of his property owes a duty to provide a safe workplace to the employee of an independent contractor. Sears responds by arguing that even if the district court's reliance on Ray was misplaced, the district court nevertheless reached the correct result. In support of its argument, Sears relies upon Anderson v. Nashua Corp., 246 Neb. 420, 519 N.W.2d 275 (1994). In Anderson, the landowner, Nashua Corporation, hired Mike Anderson's employer, an independent contractor, to paint the interior of several underground storage tanks on Nashua's property. While painting an underground tank, the tank burst into flames, severely burning Anderson. In addressing Nashua's duty under the subheading Direct Negligence, we observed that in a landowner-independent contractor context, a landowner's duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees had been modified and that in such context, such duty was limited to latent defects that the independent contractor or his employees did not have knowledge of. 246 Neb. at 431, 519 N.W.2d at 283. From this, Sears argues that the absence of rubber shoes was not latent and that, therefore, Sears breached no duty to Semler. Given the pleadings and evidence admitted at the summary judgment hearing, we conclude that Anderson is also inapplicable. Nashua's direct negligence in Anderson was considered, inter alia, in the context of premises liability. However, not every negligence action involving an injury suffered on someone's land is properly considered a premises liability case. See, Whalen v. U S West Communications, 253 Neb. 334, 346, 570 N.W.2d 531, 540 (1997) (case is not one of premises liability but instead involves injury caused by misuse of defective equipment); Ellis v. Far-Mar-Co, 215 Neb. 736, 340 N.W.2d 423 (1983) (case not one of premises liability, but instead involved active negligence of defendant). Under a premises liability theory, a court is generally concerned with either a condition on the land, see, e.g., John v. OO (Infinity) S Development Co., 234 Neb. 190, 450 N.W.2d 199 (1990); Tichenor v. Lohaus, 212 Neb. 218, 322 N.W.2d 629 (1982); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965), or the use of the land by a possessor, see, e.g., Doe v. Gunny's Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653, 593 N.W.2d 284 (1999); Haag v. Bongers, 256 Neb. 170, 589 N.W.2d 318 (1999); Restatement, supra, §§ 341 A and 344. Nowhere in Semler's petition is it alleged that his injuries were due to Sears' failure to protect him from a condition or activity existing upon Sears' land. Rather, Semler's petition alleges that Sears furnished a ladder for Semler and that Sears' negligence was based upon this act. As Semler argues in his brief, he is suing Defendant Sears for its direct negligence in supplying a defective ladder for his use on its premises. Brief for appellant at 12. Semler's petition and the evidence received by the district court do not implicate Anderson's premises liability analysis. Having concluded that neither Ray v. Argos Corp., 259 Neb. 799, 612 N.W.2d 246 (2000); Anderson, supra ; nor Parrish v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 242 Neb. 783, 496 N.W.2d 902 (1993), provides the appropriate legal analysis for determining Sears' duty, we turn to one of Semler's and Waldinger's theories raised by the pleadings and considered by the district court, namely Semler's contention that Sears breached a duty to Semler in supplying an unsafe ladder. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 392: