Opinion ID: 2616198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: duty arising from retained control

Text: Generally, an employer of an independent contractor owes no duty to the independent contractor's employees to protect those employees from the negligence of their own master. Moloso v. State, 644 P.2d 205, 210 (Alaska 1982). The evidence established that Pioneer, Parker and Veco were all independent contractors. Thus, ARCO would only be liable for its own negligence, a breach of a duty of care owed to Dahle by ARCO itself. An employer such as ARCO owes the employees of an independent contractor the duty to avoid endangering them by the employer's own negligent acts or omissions. Id. (citing Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 552 P.2d 157, 160 (Alaska 1976)). Thus, when an employer of an independent contractor retains control of part of the work, liability may attach. We have expressly adopted the retained control principle. Moloso, 644 P.2d at 211 (footnote omitted). Section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) states: One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care. The issue determined at trial was whether ARCO retained sufficient control over the work it had contracted to have done by others, to give rise to a duty of care to Dahle on the date of the accident. In reviewing the superior court's denial of Dahle's motion for a new trial, we must determine whether `the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.' Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 724 (Alaska 1975), vacated on other grounds, 552 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1976) (quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)). While ARCO retained a moderate degree of control over the work it contracted to have Pioneer perform, we cannot say as a matter of law that the evidence as to ARCO's lack of control was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust. Both contractual provisions relating to control and the actual exercise of control are relevant in determining whether the nature and extent of the retained control is sufficient to warrant imposition of liability. Moloso, 644 P.2d at 211. The evidence presented at trial did not clearly indicate who controlled Dahle's workplace at the time of the accident. [2] ARCO contended that Parker controlled the workplace, while the Dahles contended that ARCO controlled it. It is undisputed that Dahle's accident occurred on pad number 12, well number 8, in Prudhoe Bay, on property ARCO leases from the North Slope Borough. The accident occurred when Dahle was operating a 966 front-end loader owned by ARCO, to clear snow from well number 8. The loader came to a sudden stop, and Dahle was hurled against the windshield, suffering personal injuries. The loader stopped when it struck a protruding rat hole. At the time of the accident, there was a rat hole at every well. Someone had the duty to cut off the rat hole at the well where Dahle's accident occurred, but it is not clear from the record whose duty it was nor if and when that duty ripened. ARCO hired assorted companies to assist it in various phases of its oil collection process. Three such companies, Pioneer, Veco, and Parker were involved here. Witnesses at trial testified that Parker had responsibility for drilling the wells, and Veco had responsibility both for pad preparation before drilling, support work during drilling, and clean up after the Parker rig moved off. A Veco witness testified that Veco had almost the exclusive drilling support contracts at that time. Sometime after the Parker rig would leave, ARCO would bring the new well into production. Pioneer was a general contractor of labor and equipment, available to ARCO for work at any time, for however long ARCO desired it. According to ARCO employees, Pioneer worked for the ARCO maintenance division and did the same type of work that Veco did. Dahle was employed by Pioneer at the time of the accident. The evidence at trial indicated that well number 8 was not yet developed to the point of production. The Parker rig had recently completed its work at the well and had been moved, but Veco had not yet conducted its clean-up of the site. Witnesses testified that Parker would, pursuant to its contract with ARCO, cut off the rat hole after it completed drilling if it had time. Otherwise, Veco, pursuant to its contract with ARCO, would usually perform that task during its clean-up of the site. ARCO also introduced the Pioneer-ARCO contract, provisions of which required Pioneer to thoroughly inspect the work site for hazards before beginning work, and to provide continuous adequate protection of the work. The contract also provided that work in progress was open to ARCO's inspection, but that Pioneer was the sole supervisor and controller of its employees. From the evidence presented we think the jury could reasonably conclude that work was still in progress at drill site number 12, that Veco had not yet cleaned up, and that production had not yet begun. Based on these facts and the Pioneer-ARCO contract clause in which ARCO delegated responsibility for the work site to the subcontractor, the jury could conclude that ARCO did not have any duty to Dahle. While there was also evidence suggesting that ARCO did retain control over the work site and over Dahle's work, the jury's special verdict finding that ARCO owed Dahle no duty of care is not plainly unreasonable and unjust since there was evidence in support of the special verdict which cannot be characterized as slight and unconvincing. Therefore, we affirm the superior court's denial of Dahle's motion for a new trial.