Opinion ID: 3177467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voluntary Assumption of Duty Theory

Text: Plaintiffs also allege that Covol can be held liable for McCarty’s death because it assumed a duty of care under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323. First, Plaintiffs argue that Covol assumed a duty to McCarty by adopting certain internal safety policies and procedures applicable to contractors and subcontractors. Second, Plaintiffs claim that Covol assumed a duty to McCarty by undertaking to provide him with all equipment and training necessary to safely complete the garage door installation. Section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides: One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965). Plaintiffs’ first argument is rooted in Covol’s alleged noncompliance with internal safety policies and procedures. However, Kentucky rejects the notion that “a person or business entity’s adoption of an internal guideline or policy and subsequent failure to follow that internal guideline automatically leads to liability under [Restatement (Second) of Torts] § 324A.” Morgan v. Scott, 291 S.W.3d 622, 632 (Ky. 2009). Thus, as the district court held, Covol’s -7- Nos. 13-6484/6499, McCarty, et al. v. Covol Fuels failure to follow its internal safety policies cannot without more form the basis of liability for McCarty’s accident under Kentucky law.2 Second, Plaintiffs claim that Covol represented to McCarty that Covol would provide all the equipment and training needed to complete the job safely, that its failure to do so increased the risk of harm to McCarty, in violation of section 323(a), and that he suffered harm as a result of his reliance on Covol’s representations, in violation of section 323(b). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy section 323. Even if Covol initially promised to provide safety equipment and training to McCarty, and these promises are considered “rendering services,” Covol never actually provided equipment or training and therefore could not have failed to exercise reasonable care that would have increased the harm to McCarty under section 323(a). See Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890, 903 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that the plaintiffs could not proceed under Section 324A(a) of the Restatement where they failed to allege facts showing that the defendant affirmatively made, or caused to be made, a change in the conditions that created or increased the risk of harm that befell the plaintiffs); Morgan, 291 S.W.3d at 632-33 (holding that the plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied on the defendant’s in-house safety policy because “[t]he existence and subsequent non-observance of the in-house rule did nothing to increase [the] risk” to the plaintiffs). It is undisputed that H & B provided the allegedly defective ladder, not Covol. Further, Covol’s site manager testified that Covol did not inspect H & B ladders, except when used by Covol employees. H & B representatives confirmed that Covol did not inspect H & B ladders. Plaintiffs do not assert otherwise. 2 Section 324A parallels § 323 but protects third parties from harm by one who undertakes to render services to another. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324(A). This holding in Morgan was not premised upon the distinction between § 323 and § 324A, and therefore the same reasoning would apply to § 323. -8- Nos. 13-6484/6499, McCarty, et al. v. Covol Fuels Furthermore, McCarty did not detrimentally rely upon Covol’s alleged undertaking within the meaning of section 323(b). Plaintiffs do not allege that McCarty and Means chose to forego other precautions in reliance on Covol’s alleged promises of training and equipment. Rather, they started working on the garage door without Covol’s equipment or training, aware that Covol had not provided any training or equipment. Thus, McCarty did not rely on any alleged promise to his detriment within the meaning of section 323(b). See Myers, 17 F.3d at 903 (holding that the plaintiffs’ claim under section 323(b) failed because they failed to allege that they relied on government mine inspections to their detriment). The district court properly rejected Plaintiffs’ assumption of duty of care theories.