Opinion ID: 1652198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Specific Duty

Text: Stoltze also argues that AVECC can be held liable for the negligent acts of AECI because AVECC is charged by law or contract with performing the specific duty of complying with safety regulations. To support his argument, Stoltze cites Becker v. Kreilein, 770 N.E.2d 315, 318 (Ind.2002). In that case, the Supreme Court of Indiana stated that one exception to the general rule of non-liability of a principal for an independent contractor's negligence is where the principal is by law or contract charged with performing the specific duty. Becker, 770 N.E.2d at 318. In 1992, AVECC was cited by OSHA for a safety violation because an employee attempting to change out a transformer on a line with 7200 volts was not wearing rubber gloves or an equivalent method of insulation or guarding. As a result of the violation, AVECC entered into an Informal Settlement Agreement with OSHA in which AVECC agreed to comply with provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Stoltze argues that AVECC's failure to comply with the terms of the OSHA settlement was a direct violation of that duty charged to AVECC by that agreement, and that AVECC had certain duties imposed by law that subject it to the specific duty exception, and it should be held to owe a duty of care to Stoltze as a result. AVECC argues that: [t]he alleged violation of AVECC was a failure to provide gloves to its employees and not sleeves to the employees of the independent contractors. It was directed to be posted for the employees of AVECC. There is absolutely no connection between the requirements of the OSHA Informal Settlement and the allegations of Brian Stoltze. An employer has a duty to maintain a safe place of employment for its employees. See Ark.Code Ann. § 11-2-117 (Repl. 2002). We have interpreted this statute as not being applicable unless an employer-employee relationship exists. See Horn v. Shirley, 246 Ark. 1134, 441 S.W.2d 468 (1969). Since AVECC and Stoltze did not have an employer-employee relationship, this statute is inapplicable. Stoltze next argues that a specific legal duty can also be applied through directives issued by the Rural Electrical Association (REA). He refers to a bulletin issued by REA in 1967 which provides guidelines that are to be followed by electric utilities that borrow funds from the REA. Stoltze fails to explain how financial guidelines create a specific legal duty for AVECC to protect employees of AECI, and he fails to support this contention with a convincing argument or citation to authority. Where no citation to authority or convincing argument is offered, we decline to address the issue on appeal. Norman v. Norman, 347 Ark. 682, 66 S.W.3d 635 (2002).