Opinion ID: 2618356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Riebe's Actual Exercise of Control

Text: There is also sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that Riebe actually controlled the roof construction on the day of Lewis' accident, a finding that establishes retained control and subjects Riebe to possible liability under § 414. Lewis testified at trial that Smith discussed the 2 X 4 method of removing the plywood sheathing from the roof with Garges employees: Q. Was there ... a general conversation where the dislodging of the plywood was discussed that you're aware of because you were present? A. Yes. .... Q. Did Mr. Smith of N.J. Riebe participate in that conversation? A. Yes, he did. Q. Was it decided at that conversation to dislodge the sheathing by banging it from below with two-by-fours? A. Yes, it was. .... Q. You didn't hear Mike Smith say remove the plywood from underneath, did you? A. He did not instruct me to remove the plywood underneath. Q. You didn't hear him in that conversation say that, did you? A. Yes, I did, I believe so. In addition, Clinton, a Garges employee working on the roof with Lewis, testified that he believed Smith controlled the work performed by Garges' employees on the day of Lewis' accident because Garges' foreman was not present at the job site on that day: Q. And the second day is when the two-by-fours were used to knock the sheathing loose? A. Yes. Q. Was that the date of the accident? A. Yes. Q. Was there a supervisor from Mel Garges Construction present that day? A. No, there wasn't. .... Q. Who was directing your activities on the day of the accident? A. I couldn't say positively, but I would say that it would have to have been the superintendent from Riebe because the Garges foreman wasn't there, he was the general contractor on it for us, somebody would have to instruct us. Because we must give Lewis the benefit of every favorable inference which can be drawn from this evidence, Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. Parr, 96 Ariz. 13, 16, 391 P.2d 575, 577 (1964), we find that this evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that Riebe actually controlled the method of removing the plywood sheathing on the day of Lewis' accident. Consequently, Riebe would be liable under § 414 if Smith did not exercise his supervisory control with reasonable care so as to prevent the work which he ... ordered to be done from causing injury to others. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 comment (a) (1965). In addition, Riebe actually exercised its retained safety authority on the day of Lewis' accident. Smith testified that he was responsible for the overall safety of the project and that he had the power to stop a subcontractor's work if he believed the work was being performed in a dangerous manner. Smith also testified that he instructed workers to leave the work space below the roof when the carpenters began loosening the plywood sheets because he believed the 2 X 4 method of removing the plywood was dangerous. By exercising his safety authority, Smith exhibited Riebe's retained control over Garges' work, and Riebe is liable under § 414 if Smith exercised his authority negligently. See § 414 comment (b).