Opinion ID: 1701237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: finding for husker steel

Text: McKinstry contends that Husker Steel, as a contractor, is liable for failure to provide safety in the construction site. There is no evidence that Husker Steel, as a general contractor, was in control of the premises where work performance under a contract with the owner was being carried out. Sullivan v. Geo. A. Hormel and Co., 208 Neb. 262, 265, 303 N.W.2d 476, 478 (1981). To impose the duty on a contractor to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition while the contract is in the course of performance, the general contractor must be in control of the premises. Sullivan v. Geo. A. Hormel and Co., supra . If Husker Steel may be characterized as a general contractor, nothing indicates that Husker Steel at any point controlled the construction site. Without such control of the construction site or premises, Husker Steel, as a general contractor, owed no duty to WeWeldit's employees regarding the construction site's reasonably safe condition during performance of the contract for construction of the bridge. Reduced to a fundamental expression, the exculpatory conclusion regarding Husker Steel's liability for safety in the construction site is no control, no liability. McKinstry next contends that if there is a contractor-subcontractor relationship between Husker Steel and WeWeldit concerning the bridge project, then, in accordance with Erickson v. Monarch Indus., supra , Husker Steel could not delegate to WeWeldit the duty to provide safety in the bridge project, including the excavatory work which caused Eugene McKinstry's death. As a result of that nondelegable duty, McKinstry argues, Husker Steel was liable for negligence of WeWeldit in the excavatory work for the bridge. However, Husker Steel's role in the bridge project is not so comprehensive as characterized by McKinstry. A contractor is one who enters into a contract with the owner of certain property to perform some type of work on that property. See Richard v. Ill. Bell Telephone Co., 66 Ill.App.3d 825, 23 Ill. Dec. 215, 383 N.E.2d 1242 (1978). On the other hand, a subcontractor is one who independently contracts with the contractor to do part of the work which the contractor has previously agreed to perform. See, Miller et al. v. Cornell-Young Co. et al., 171 S.C. 228, 171 S.E. 790 (1933); Murray v. Aaron Mizell Trucking Company, 286 S.C. 351, 334 S.E.2d 128 (1985); Richard v. Ill. Bell Telephone Co., supra . The Husker Steel-county contract did not require that Husker Steel supply any trenching, excavating, or earthwork, which work was left entirely and independently to the county. Beyond its blueprints and products supplied in the bridge project, Husker Steel never actively and directly participated in erecting the bridge. Only the county had the obligation to provide the earthwork for the bridge, which eventually caused Eugene McKinstry's death. Therefore, excavation or trenching for the bridge was a matter outside the contractual obligations imposed on Husker Steel as the result of its agreement with the county. Consequently, neither by contract nor by conduct did Husker Steel obligate itself for earthwork in erecting the bridge. If Husker Steel, as a contractor, was not obligated to supply excavatory work for the bridge, WeWeldit, as Husker Steel's subcontractor, was not obligated to render excavatory work which its contractor had not agreed to perform and which its contractor had not otherwise undertaken as a part of the contracted bridge project. As an alternative expression of the situation, WeWeldit's participation in excavation or trenching for the bridge was work which Husker Steel had not agreed to perform. One can hardly be characterized as a subcontractor of work not to be performed by the contractor. Thus, if WeWeldit were negligent in the excavatory work, WeWeldit's negligence occurred outside Husker Steel's contracted work and, consequently, happened when WeWeldit was not acting as the subcontractor of Husker Steel. Under the circumstances, Husker Steel contracted no responsibility to supply excavation or trenching for the bridge project and, correspondingly, owed no duty to provide safety in the course of the excavatory work in erecting the bridge. Therefore, Husker Steel was not liable, directly or vicariously, for negligence in the fatal trenching or excavation. On account of the evidence, or lack of evidence, presented in the record which we have reviewed, we cannot conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in its finding that Husker Steel was not liable for any negligence which caused the death of Eugene McKinstry. The judgment against McKinstry concerning Husker Steel is affirmed. Regarding McKinstry's question about the admissibility of the OSHA regulations and in view of our disposition of other questions in this appeal, it is unlikely that the particular evidential question will arise on retrial of this matter. Because we have reversed the judgment pertaining to the county, these proceedings are remanded to the district court for a new trial on McKinstry's claim against the county. AFFIRMED IN PART, AND IN PART REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.