Opinion ID: 1735293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Control over the work.

Text: ¶ 14. Coho argues that it is not liable because it did not maintain de facto nor de jure control over the work that Sauls was performing. Where a party such as Coho contracts with another such as Sauls to perform the repair work, the owner has no liability for injuries experienced by the contractor's workers where those injuries arose out of or were intimately connected with the work. Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 551 So.2d 182, 185 (Miss.1989). The critical question is whether the project owner maintains any right of control over the performance of that aspect of the work that has given rise to the injury. Id. at 186. When determining this the undisputed language of the contract becomes important. Id. However, if Chapman can show that the contract notwithstanding, the owner maintained substantial de facto control over those features of the work out of which the injury arose, we may have a horse of a different color. Id. ¶ 15. Here, under its contract with Coho, Sauls assumed full and complete responsibility for the conditions pertaining to the work, the site of the work, and the care and maintenance of the work. The contract clearly stated that Sauls was an independent contractor, and Coho had no direction or control over Sauls or its employees. Coho did maintain reasonable access to the work-site. Coho also reserved the right of dismissal of Sauls' personnel or termination of the contract if a complete safety program was not followed. The contract also specified a day rate or hourly rate for the work. Although the control of the workover had been vested in Sauls in one part of the contract, clearly Coho retained the ultimate authority for safety. ¶ 16. However, the testimony at trial was contradictory on the issue of whether Coho retained substantial de facto control. The two employees of Centrilift testified that Coho did not instruct Sauls nor did they instruct Chapman. Chapman and Bryan Hoze, both employees of Sauls, testified that the two employees who were under the control of Coho instructed them to use the 36 inch pipe wrench and also instructed Sauls to give the tongs more throttle in order to break the joint and free the pipe wrench. Bruce Ivy, the supervisor of the rig who worked for Sauls, testified that no one gave him or his employees instructions and that it was his sole decision to use the pipe wrench. He also testified that Glenn Ainsworth, Coho's representative, was at the well site at the beginning of the day and was in and out for the rest of the day and never gave them instructions on how to do the job. ¶ 17. Jimmy Barber, an expert retained by Chapman, testified that in his opinion and based upon his experience the operator/owner of the well retains control over the operation at all times, Ainsworth should have discussed the operation with Sauls, and Ainsworth should have stopped the operation so that the correct tools can be delivered. However, on cross Barber stated that he did not know what the responsibilities were between Coho and Sauls and that he was just stating his opinion based on his experience. However, Coho's witnesses testified that any man working on the rig, including Chapman, could have shut the operation down if it was unsafe. According to Joseph Boyd, who was the operator/manager for Sauls, there has to be a method where anyone can shut it down automatically if it becomes unsafe. Furthermore, George Coley, an expert retained by Coho, stated that there is rarely on-the-site supervision during the job and the owner, Coho, would not maintain control over the rig floor. ¶ 18. In McCarthy, this Court stated that the owner is liable to employees of an independent contractor for his own negligence when they are under a duty to provide proper supervision. 829 So.2d at 13. Here, the contract stated that Coho could stop any work that was not being performed safely, and Chapman's expert testified that Coho's representative should have supervised the job and stopped it once he determined that the proper tools were not being used. However, there was also testimony that anyone could shut the operation down, including Chapman and any of Sauls' employees. In fact, there was testimony from the manager of Sauls that there must be a method in which any man could shut down the operations automatically upon request. Some testimony at trial demonstrated that Coho at times retained substantial control, but there was also testimony that was in direct conflict and demonstrated that Coho did not retain substantial control. ¶ 19. While the general rule is that the owner of the premises does not have a duty to protect an independent contractor against risks arising from or intimately connected with the work, there is an exception where the owner maintains substantial de jure or de facto control over the work to be performed. The contract and the contradictory testimony at trial sufficiently created a jury question as to whether Coho retained substantial control over the workover site. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in denying Coho's motion for directed verdict and JNOV.