Opinion ID: 2612181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the plaintiff's theories of recovery, the defendants' defenses, and the court rulings

Text: The plaintiff's amended complaint contains two counts. The first count is based on a theory of common law negligence and contains allegations of specific acts of negligence and specific safety code violations. The second count incorporates by reference the acts of alleged negligence and the alleged violations of the safety codes and concludes with a typical ELA allegation that the work involved risk and danger, that the plaintiff was an employee exposed to said risk and danger and that the defendants failed to use every device, care or precaution which it is practicable to use for the protection and safety of life and limb and that the defendants failed to furnish plaintiff a place of employment which was safe   . In their answers, the defendants affirmatively alleged that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and that at the time of the accident, plaintiff was a foreman or other person having charge of the particular work then being carried on    and    was under a duty to see that the requirements of the Employer's Liability Act were complied with at that time. This defense involves the so-called vice-principal rule. At the conclusion of the case, the trial judge granted directed verdicts and entered judgment in favor of both defendants. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and ordered a new trial as to the defendant Consolidated, and affirmed the directed verdict in GP's favor. The Court of Appeals held: 1. Although GP was the occupier of the premises where the incident occurred, it had no liability under either theory advanced by the plaintiff because it took no part in the activity  the moving of the blade  by direct participation in the enterprise or by exercising control over the manner or method in which the work was conducted. 55 Or. App. at 362, 637 P.2d 1354 (citing Wilson v. P.G.E. Company, 252 Or. 385, 391, 448 P.2d 562 (1969)). 2. Plaintiff's ELA evidence against Consolidated was, as a matter of law, insufficient because plaintiff was in charge of the job of inspection and therefore barred under the application of the vice-principal rule announced in Howard v. Foster & Kleiser Company, 217 Or. 516, 543, 332 P.2d 621, 342 P.2d 780 (1959). 55 Or. App. at 363-64, 637 P.2d 1354. 3. The safety code violations of the Oregon Safe Employment Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, if any, are moot because evidence of such violations is applicable only to an ELA claim. 55 Or. App. at 365, 637 P.2d 1354. 4. There was evidence from which a jury could find that Consolidated was guilty of common law negligence in the manner in which it moved the blade and therefore a new trial was ordered as to Consolidated on the common law negligence claim. 55 Or. App. at 364-65, 637 P.2d 1354. We agree with the analysis and holding of the Court of Appeals concerning the directed verdict in favor of GP and will not repeat the analysis and holding here. We also agree with the Court of Appeals that a jury question existed on plaintiff's negligence claim against Consolidated, a ruling upon which no review has been requested. However, the Court of Appeals erred (1) in holding that the evidence was insufficient to create a jury question under plaintiff's ELA claim because of the application of the vice-principal rule, and (2) in holding that the safety code did not apply. These questions are discussed below in that order.