Opinion ID: 578297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the defendant's familiarity with construction customs and practice; and

Text: 18 10. whether the defendant was in a position to assure worker safety or alleviate equipment deficiencies or improper work habits. 5 19 Mr. Payne asserts that the evidence shows that several of these factors were met. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that all of the evidentiary points advanced by the plaintiff are either unsupported by any evidence, based on inadmissible hearsay, or could not justify an inference that the defendant had charge of the work. 6 20 For example, it is true that the Mayor of the Village of Elwood, Mr. Archer, had been a structural steel worker and was generally familiar with good welding practices. It is true that Mr. Archer was on the job site almost every day, occasionally talked with the workmen, and even helped them start their equipment on a few mornings. It is also true that, as the Mayor of the Village of Elwood, Mr. Archer had the general right to withhold payment if not satisfied with the work. 21 When taken in context, however, none of these facts could justify an inference that the Village of Elwood had charge of the project. Mr. Archer was on the site almost every day because the site was only 200 feet away from his office; he was not on the site in any supervisory capacity. As a former iron worker, it is understandable that he would want to talk with the workers, but he had no authority with respect to the manner in which they performed their tasks. Finally, [a]n owner's observations of the work to determine that he is getting what he is paying for does not make him in charge of the work. 7 22 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there simply is no admissible evidence from which a jury could infer that the Village of Elwood was in charge of the work. 23