Opinion ID: 1134573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: James Bullock

Text: In Malen McCracken's deposition, he testified as to his and Bullock's respective duties: Q. Whose responsibility is it to perform safety inspections of the work area of your various workers? A. We don't have anyone specifically assigned to that. But, as I go through or as anyone else on the staff may go through and notice things, we'll try to make corrections. Q. What kind of things are you talking about? A. Anything that may bewhat we may think of as a problem area. A safety hazard. Q. If you saw, for example, a door which was broken, would that be the kind of hazard that you are talking about correcting? A. I guess it would depend on the door and the problem. Q. How often are inspections made? A. I beg your pardon? Q. How often do you make these walk-through inspections? A. I am usually through the building at least three or four times a week. Q. Now, if one of the members of your staff saw something that was a potential safety hazard, it would be their responsibility to see to it that it was fixed or reported to you? A. Their responsibilityI don't know that they have been specifically told to go back and look for things, but things that are noticed usually are reported. Q. They take it upon themselves to report it to you; is that correct? A. Usually. Q. Then, it is your responsibility to see to it that it is repaired? A. Yes. Q. Would the supervisor of the shop or more particularly, would Mr. [Bullock] have the occasion to go through these particular doors every day, as far as you know? A. As far as I know. Q. If he saw a potential safety hazard existing in this particular work area, do you think it would be his responsibility to report that to you? A. I would think so. A review of the record reveals no indication that the Association, as Ritchie's employer, had delegated to defendant Bullock any portion of its duty to provide a reasonably safe place of employment. Moreover, McCracken's testimony that his staff would usually report a noticeable safety hazard falls far short of suggesting a voluntary assumption of duty by Bullock. Furthermore, McCracken's testimony that he would think Bullock would report a potential safety hazard if he saw one is not probative evidence of any voluntary assumption by Bullock to provide a safe workplace for his co-employees. There is no evidence that a specific safety hazard had been reported by Bullock at any time during his employment. The evidence shows, at most, only that Bullock had observed what had been apparent for at least 14 yearsthat there were two swinging doors separating the rooms. Bullock specifically testified that he knew of no organized safety programs at the Association or of any person designated or acting as safety supervisor or safety man. In addition, the plaintiff herself testified that there was no safety program at the Association and that there were no safety meetings where one of the employees would discuss job safety. There cannot be drawn from the evidence a reasonable inference that defendant Bullock had voluntarily assumed or had been delegated his employer's duty to provide a safe workplace, nor did his general supervisory responsibilities serve to put him in charge of insuring safety in the workplace. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of defendant Bullock was proper.