Opinion ID: 744755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Control Over the Accident Site

Text: 7 On appeal, we review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all inferences from the underlying facts in favor of the nonmovant. See Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 71 F.3d 58, 64 (2d Cir.1995). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1607, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Mindful of these standards, we agree with the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. 8 Plaintiffs' affidavit, filed in opposition to the United States' motion for summary judgment, states that no construction work was being done on the steps at the time of the accident and that there were no barricades or warning signs indicating that the area was off-limits. This evidence, however, even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, fails to establish that the USPS controlled or otherwise had responsibility for the area in question. That the stairs themselves were not under construction, or immediately surrounded by active construction work, is not dispositive. The span of a construction site is not limited to the precise area where the construction is taking place; it includes adjacent areas as well. Moreover, the absence of barricades or warning signs does not establish that the area was outside the control of the independent contractor. 9 Additional evidence leads conclusively to the fact that the locus of the accident was within the zone controlled by the Beys Specialty. Edgar Penny, the chief custodian of the Great Neck Post Office, on at least five occasions during his deposition, firmly and unequivocally stated that the area in which Athanasios fell was off limits to postal workers and used solely by the construction workers. Plaintiffs proffered no reasonably credible evidence in rebuttal. In addition, plaintiffs' own photographs indicate that the rear entrance of the post office, which is immediately adjacent to the spot where Athanasios fell, was boarded up--an unmistakable indication that the area where the accident occurred was within the zone of construction. See Brief for the United States, Addendum A, at 1.B. Nondelegable duty 10 Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that, even assuming that the accident site was not within the control of the USPS, the United States is nonetheless liable because, under New York law, a landowner who holds property open to the public has a nondelegable duty to ensure that the premises are safe. See, e.g., Thomassen v. J & K Diner, Inc., 152 A.D.2d 421, 549 N.Y.S.2d 416, 417 (N.Y.App.Div.1989). Even assuming such a nondelegable duty exists, plaintiffs nonetheless are foreclosed under the FTCA from a recovery based on such a duty. 11 Consent of the United States to be sued  'cannot be implied, but must be unequivocally expressed.'  United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 953, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976) (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969)). In the FTCA, Congress waived the United States' sovereign immunity for suits arising from any injury caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Employee under the FTCA, however, specifically excludes any contractor with the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2671; United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813-14, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975-76, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976); Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 526-27, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 2218-19, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973). Thus, as a general rule, sovereign immunity precludes suits against the United States for injuries caused by its independent contractors. 12 The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, fail to support a reasonable inference that Beys Specialty was an employee within the meaning of the Act. The United States did not maintain control of the detailed physical performance of the contractor, Logue, 412 U.S. at 527-28, 93 S.Ct. at 2219-20 or supervise its day-to-day operations, Orleans, 425 U.S. at 815, 96 S.Ct. at 1976. The only arguable indicia of control, the government's retention of a right to inspect the progress of construction, does not convert a contractor into a federal employee. See, e.g., Leone v. United States, 910 F.2d 46, 50 (2d Cir.1990). 13 Plaintiffs, however, contend that under New York's putative nondelegable duty, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (noting that liability under the FTCA is determined in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred), recovery is possible notwithstanding the FTCA's independent contractor exception. This argument fails for two reasons. 14 First, as the Supreme Court has explained, in adopting the independent contractor exception to liability, Congress did not simultaneously adopt the exceptions to that doctrine. See Logue, 412 U.S. at 528, 93 S.Ct. at 2219; see also Basher v. United States, No. 92-CV-186, 1995 WL 646343, at  3 (D.Conn. Mar.14, 1995) (Cabranes, J.). Thus, any state law nondelegable duty cannot, on its own, override the United States' sovereign immunity from suits for injuries caused by its independent contractors. See Berkman v. United States, 957 F.2d 108, 112 (4th Cir.1992) (holding FTCA exemption of liability for government contractors preempts state law where it imposes nondelegable duties); Hall v. United States, 825 F.Supp. 427, 431-32 (D.N.H.1993) (United States not liable where plaintiff was injured in an elevator in government building and elevator maintenance delegated to independent contractor); Rowell v. United States, No. 89-Civ-8418, 1992 WL 315653, at  2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.16, 1992) (noting that if plaintiff could predicate government liability upon New York laws imposing nondelegable duties upon landowners ... he would subvert the express mandates of the FTCA that preclude making the government liable for acts of its independent contractors); Smith v. United States, 674 F.Supp. 683, 686 (D.Minn.1987); Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. United States, 508 F.Supp. 298, 301 (N.D.Ill.1981). But see Dickerson, Inc. v. United States, 875 F.2d 1577, 1582-83 (11th Cir.1989) (holding that the independent contractor exception in the FTCA would not insulate the Government from the contractor's negligence if the duty was non-delegable under [state] law). 15 Plaintiffs' theory fails for a second reason. State law nondelegable duties imposed on landowners would result, in cases such as this, in a form of strict liability against the United States for injuries caused by its independent contractors. The FTCA, however, precludes government liability absent a negligent act, and, thus, does not extend to liability without fault. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 44, 73 S.Ct. 956, 972, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953); see also Schneider v. United States, 734 F.Supp. 239, 248 (E.D.La.1990); Maltais v. United States, 546 F.Supp. 96, 101 (N.D.N.Y.1982) (Miner, J.), aff'd, 729 F.2d 1442 (2d Cir.1983) (mem.); Dumansky v. United States, 486 F.Supp. 1078, 1093 (D.N.J.1980). 16 Accordingly, in rejecting plaintiffs' arguments, we hold that in this suit under the FTCA, where the United States is wholly without fault, the federal government may not be held liable for a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an independent contractor even where state law would impose liability in such instances.