Opinion ID: 1872182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issues relating to Nunnelly

Text: Gossett argues that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment for Nunnelly because, Gossett says, as a matter of law it was foreseeable by Nunnelly that Gossett would disobey his instructions and, therefore, Gossett says, Nunnelly had a duty to take appropriate steps to create safe work conditions through training, supervision, and adequate traffic controls. However, we find no evidence that Gossett's actions were foreseeable by Nunnelly, and thus no evidence that Gossett was within the sphere of his employment with Nunnelly at the time of the accident. Nunnelly's only knowledge that Gossett had accepted direction from Garner previously related to the tasks of wiring houses or unloading a truck. This had occurred infrequently. Gossett had not previously run cable strand on the project, and Nunnelly, on the day of the accident, had specifically told him not to. The evidence was that Gossett was a good worker and had always followed Nunnelly's instructions. There was no evidence to suggest that Nunnelly should have foreseen that Gossett would disobey the direct order not to run cable strand. Wilful violations of an employer's orders limiting the sphere of the employee's employment can create a bar to recovery. Johnson v. Brinker, 289 Ala. 240, 243, 266 So.2d 851 (1972) (analyzing the statutory codification of this common law rule). If an employee voluntarily undertakes to do work about which he had no duties to perform by virtue of the contractual relation existing between him and his employer, then, while such condition exists, the duty ... of using care for [the employee's] safety does not rest on the employer. Southern Ry. v. Guyton, 122 Ala. 231, 240, 25 So. 34, 37 (1899). In the present case, it is undisputed that Nunnelly specifically limited the sphere of Gossett's employment on the day of the accident to tasks other than running cable strand. Gossett wilfully undertook to run cable strand anyway. In so doing, Gossett went outside the sphere of his employment, and Nunnelly, therefore, was absolved of a duty to provide him a safe workplace at the time of the accident. See, Doby v. Layton, 210 Ala. 303, 305, 98 So. 9 (1923).