Opinion ID: 2321640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary of Presley's Evidence and Arguments at Trial

Text: At trial, Presley attempted to recover damages from CRSS under a negligence theory, alleging that CRSS owed him a duty of care, CRSS breached that duty of care, and CRSS' breach of that duty was the proximate cause of his injuries. See Haynesworth v. D.H. Stevens Co., 645 A.2d 1095, 1097-98 (D.C.1994) (citing Powell v. District of Columbia, 634 A.2d 403, 406 (D.C.1993); Levy v. Schnabel Found. Co., 584 A.2d 1251, 1255 (D.C.1991)). In support of his argument that CRSS owed him a duty of care, Presley attempted to establish that CRSS exercised control over the work of the general contractor, Grimberg, regarding safety matters by focusing on CRSS' responsibility to monitor labor and safety requirements, as outlined in the CQM contract, and CRSS' authority to `stop work' for imminent danger situations observed, as noted in the safety reports. Gary Menefee, a Grimberg foreman, testified that CRSS regularly monitored the work of his crew. He also testified that CRSS stopped the work of his crew to correct safety hazards, such as when his crew had to move pipes out of the way. Joseph Angsten, Grimberg's project manager, testified that CRSS inspectors' responsibilities with respect to monitoring compliance with safety regulations included walking the site on a daily basis and bringing any problems to the attention of Grimberg, either by addressing the Grimberg worker directly or raising the issue to him for correction. He could not recall if any Grimberg employees ever failed to follow a safety code suggestion made by CRSS inspectors, nor could he recall if CRSS inspectors ever stopped work at the site if they encountered safety hazards. Allen Lee Rector, Grimberg's project superintendent, testified that CRSS monitored the work of Grimberg throughout the project. Rector further testified that part of CRSS' function was to monitor compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. He also testified that if CRSS employees encountered any kind of safety hazard in their monitoring function, they would certainly bring it to [Grimberg's] attention and [Grimberg] would deal with it. Brian Koches, CRSS' Project Executive, testified that [i]f a CRSS person saw somebody up on that cooling tower that was in imminent danger of falling . . . they should intervene because our company policy is to do just that. However, when asked whether CRSS failed in its mission to monitor the provision of the fall protection in Presley's case, Koches stated that we were not there monitoring the safety of every operation that th[e] contractor was doing . . . because we're not everywhere where that contractor is. Joe Wear, CRSS' Project Manager, admitted that part of CRSS responsibilities under the contract was to monitor compliance with safety codes and regulations, and that fall protection was required when someone is working six feet above the ground. However, Wear testified that monitoring did not mean constant supervision, but rather entailed observation. Wear testified that with respect to safety on the job site, if he and the other inspectors saw an infraction or saw something that was wrong, they would report it to Grimberg so Grimberg could take care of the problem. Wear further testified that if he and the other inspectors saw somebody in danger like needing fall protection, they would ask him to get down, and call Grimberg's general superintendent to tell [Grimberg] that they need to do something to protect their employees. Presley also attempted to establish that CRSS had a duty, which it breached, as a controlling employer. This duty, he argued, was related to CRSS contractual obligation to anticipate problems and immediately act to preclude or mitigate any negative effects on the construction project(s). In addition, Presley relied on the expert testimony of Terry Lane, a former OSHA Area Director. Lane testified that CRSS had the standard of care to anticipate, plan for and monitor expected [safety] hazards, including those falling under the cooling tower placement project. In reaching this conclusion, Lane relied on the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard governing safety programs for multi-employer worksites. Lane explained that the industry use of the ANSI standards did not rely solely upon contracts as the basis of duties because the safety business recognizes the obligation of controlling employers. He then stated that [c]ontrolling employers are those people such as CRSS who are the boss of the site. However, CRSS' counsel objected because Lane's testimony went beyond mere expert testimony and into the province of the [c]ourt in terms of determining what the applicable law will be to determine whether or not an obligation is owed. The court agreed, finding that controlling employer did not come from the ANSI standard, but from OSHA's Multi-Employer Citation Policy, which was outside the scope of Lane's testimony. The court then permitted Presley to question Lane about what the ANSI standard stated with respect to the responsibilities of a project constructor. [7] Lane testified that CRSS met the definition of a project constructor because it was responsible for supervising and controlling the construction work performed on this project. However, he noted that contractors are responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring and enforcing their safety and health program unless the requirements are performed by a higher contractor. Lane further testified that CRSS had another duty, which was applicable to all of the contractors on the site, based on the ANSI standard. This duty was to conduct and implement a hazard analysis describing potential hazards and actions required to provide a safe and healthful workplace, which was to be undertaken at the initiation of a construction project and for the critical stages of work. Lane testified that based on this last duty arising from the ANSI standard, CRSS failed to anticipate, plan for and monitor expected [safety] hazards. In particular, Lane testified that it was obvious that work was going to be done well above six feet and CRSS did not anticipate it, and CRSS did not plan for it and [CRSS] certainly did not monitor it. Lane further stated that had CRSS met its standard of care, he believed that Presley would not have been injured because a properly planned construction of these towers would not have resulted in the fall. Presley attempted to establish that CRSS had a duty of due care stemming from its contractual obligation to anticipate problems and immediately act to preclude or mitigate any negative effects on the construction project(s). CRSS' Project Manager Wear admitted that in order to anticipate, CRSS had to be able to foresee there might be a problem if the code requirements were not complied with. Wear stated that, at the meetings regarding the assembly of the cooling towers, there w[as] no [discussion of] safety requirements for people like Mr. Presley going up on top of the towers. He noted that neither Presley nor Grimberg consulted with him in advance about how to do the work at the site. Wear further stated that on the day of the incident, no CRSS employees were on site, and thus did not see anyone at the site working in a situation that required fall protection.