Opinion ID: 1393548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An owner's liability to employees of an independent contractor

Text: This court has previously adopted the general proposition set forth in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 409 (1965), stating that the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his servants. Hill v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 765 P.2d 1348, 1349 (Wyo.1988). See also, Stephenson v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 779 P.2d 1169, 1176 (Wyo.1989); Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890, 898 (Wyo.1986); Noonan v. Texaco, Inc., 713 P.2d 160, 164-67 (Wyo.1986); 41 AM.JUR.2D Independent Contractors § 24 (1968). This Court has previously held that the owner of the workplace who employs an independent contractor and retains the right to direct the manner of an independent contractor's performance or assumes affirmative duties with respect to safety owes a duty of reasonable care to an employee of the independent contractor even if the employee is injured doing the very work the [independent] contractor was hired to perform. Jones, 718 P.2d at 896 (citations omitted). See also Cockburn v. Terra Resources, Inc., 794 P.2d 1334, 1342 (Wyo.1990); Stephenson, 779 P.2d at 1177; Hill, 765 P.2d at 1349; Brewster v. Salveson Construction, 765 P.2d 1350 (Wyo.1988); Stockwell v. Parker Drilling Co., 733 P.2d 1029, 1033 (Wyo.1987). However, the owner must retain more than the general right to order the contractors to stop work, to inspect the progress of the work, to make recommendations thereon, or to prescribe alterations or deviations in the work [ Stockwell, 733 P.2d at 1033] in order to impose liability under that rule. The product of our precedent is that an employer of an independent contractor, although potentially responsible for injuries to employees of the contractor, must assume a controlling and pervasive role in the work being done in order to generate any duty of care sufficient to establish vicarious liability for the negligence of the independent contractor. Cockburn, 794 P.2d at 1342 (citations omitted). See also, Johnston v. Conoco, Inc., 758 P.2d 566 (Wyo.1988). Our first area of inquiry would ordinarily be to the written contract between NGP and TWS. Although the contract is not conclusive evidence of the status of the relationship between parties, it is a strong indication of the association intended. See Noonan, 713 P.2d at 165. In this case, however, no written contract exists. Duane Winkler testified that NGP does not normally enter into written agreements with workover companies, and did not enter into a written contract with TWS. We, therefore, must look to the record to determine whether NGP controlled, or had a right to control, TWS' performance sufficient to establish a duty to TWS' (an independent contractor's) employees. The employer may exercise a limited control over the work without rendering the contractor a mere servant or employee, as a relation of master and servant or employer and employee is not inferable from a reservation of powers which do not deprive the contractor of his right to do the work according to his own initiative, so long as he does it in accordance with the contract. The control of the work reserved in the employer which affects a master-servant relationship is control of the means and manner of performance of the work, as well as of the result; an independent contractor relationship exists where the person doing the work is subject to the will of the employer only as to the result, but not as to the means or manner of accomplishment.... A requirement that the work be performed according to standards and specifications imposed by the owner is not sufficient to establish the degree of control necessary to make a presumably independent contractor the agent of the owner, but the retention of the right not only to insure conformity with specifications, but also the retention or exercise of the right to direct the manner in or means by which the work shall be performed, will destroy the independent status of the contractor. 41 AM.JUR.2D Independent Contractors § 8 (1968) (emphasis added); and see Noonan, 713 P.2d at 164-66. In examining the record, we find the following indicia of the extent of NGP's control over TWS: 1. NGP, through its agent, Duane Winkler, controlled the equipment to be used to complete the TWS' crew's tasks. Testimony showed that John Nodolf, TWS' rig operator on this job, asked Winkler for a tubing swivel. [4] Winkler replied that they would not need one, could get by with the chicksan, and NGP would not provide the tubing swivel. Nodolf told Winkler that he did not like to use chicksans because sometimes they bind up; he thought he mentioned to Winkler that the use of a chicksan to circulate sand in this instance would not be safe. The decision to use the chicksan stood. [5] The TWS' crew, left to their own manner of performance, would have used a tubing swivel to complete this task. NGP, through Winkler, mandated that the TWS' crew could not have the tubing swivel they felt was proper for the job they were hired to perform on the Natural Gas Processing location. 2. NGP instructed the TWS' crew in the manner of completion of their performance. When the TWS crew first attempted to make the connection between the chicksan and the pipe to be used in circulation, they tried to attach the chicksan to the tube by hoisting a worker up into the air to the top of the joint to make the connection. Winkler directed the crew to make the connections on the floor of the rig instead because they were taking too much time. The TWS' crew took specific directions from Winkler regarding the performance of their jobs. Mike Hull remembered that Winkler told him to start scooping off the sand that was circulating out of the well. 3. NGP controlled the pace of the TWS' crew's performance. Each member of TWS' crew testified that Winkler had driven them to work faster. See, e.g., (John Nodolf: [H]e was wanting us to go fast.... He was ... always there kind of riding you, or trying to get you to go a little faster); (Jack Wiggins, the derrick hand: I'd jog over there [from the pump back to the deck] or walk or run.... Mainly jog, because we were always at a high rate of speed.... [E]ver since I started working for him, it's been go, go, go); (Mike Hull, the floor hand: There's been some days you never even shut down for lunch or nothing. You just worked through and worked through. Some days might be shorter days, and some days you might be out there for fourteen, eighteen hours a day. If they wanted to get something done, you just stayed there and did it.). Had NGP merely retained the right to supervise or inspect TWS' work as it progressed to determine whether the work was completed according to plan, TWS would have retained its independent contractor status and NGP would not be liable for TWS' negligence. When the employer of the independent contractor directs the manner of the independent contractor's performance, as NGP did here, the independent contractor is no longer free to manage its own operation and direct his own employees. At this point, the independent contractor's employer has abandoned the protection of the independent contractor rule, and owes the independent contractor's employees a duty of reasonable care. Winkler's actions at the work site went beyond making general suggestions or recommendations; he told the rig hands what to do, how and when to do it, and what equipment they were to use. In undertaking to control the work site operations, Winkler abandoned (for NGP) the protection of the independent contractor rule.