Opinion ID: 1600170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the trial court err in dismissing contractor boyd?

Text: McKay asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Boyd. In his complaint filed on December 2, 1983, McKay alleged that the defendants were responsible for building a roadway and bridge over the [Strong] River [on U.S. Highway 49] and that the abutments were constructed in the public right of way ... [and the] abutment was located approximately 23 inches from the traversed portion of the said roadway. McKay also alleged that the paved portion of the southbound lane of the highway was negligently constructed for it was unduly pitched to the left which tended to cause vehicles using the area to drift leftward toward the bridge abutment. According to McKay, it was because of this faulty construction that the accident occurred. McKay made other claims as well. He maintained that the defendants were violative of the rules and regulations promulgated by the United States government. In particular, the defendants failed to provide guardrails to prevent head-on contact with abutments in the right of way. Finally, McKay asserted that the defendants knew or should have known that their disregard for minimal safety standards would create substantial risk or harm for persons such as himself. Boyd's answer to this complaint, filed on January 10, 1984, alleged that McKay failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, and the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Boyd's third defense maintained that its only involvement in the construction in question included construction of bridges, overpasses, paving of overpasses and common excavation of the roadbed. Moreover, Boyd also indicated that it had no obligation under its contract, nor was it involved in the design of the bridge or roadway, or in the paving of the roadway. Finally, Boyd asserts that it was in no manner involved in any circumstances which produced McKay's accident. As has been outlined in the Course of Proceedings, supra, pp. 1-4, this case was shuffled through several courts. On October 30, 1985, Boyd filed its motion for summary judgment. He followed this motion with an affidavit and a brief in support of the motion. The brief was filed on January 13, 1986. In the supporting affidavit, the president of Boyd stated that it entered into a contract with the highway commission on March 14, 1962, to do some clearing and grubbing, construction of the Strong River bridges and construction of overpasses. The affiant also indicated that Boyd had  no part in the design and specification stage of the planning and was only allowed ... to bid on the project as designed and approved by the Mississippi Highway Commission and Federal Bureau of Roads. Moreover, Boyd had no control or authority over the design and location of the bridge, including the abutments and its work was performed under close, strict supervision by the State and federal inspectors. The state did not pay Boyd for its services until inspections were conducted by state and federal authorities, and written approval had been given. After Boyd completed the common excavation, the state entered a new contract with another contractor for paving. The paving contractor had to reshape all excavations before they began the approximate two (2) feet of fill prior to commencing the actual paving work. Moreover, the paving was not completed and made ready for traffic until two years later. Additionally, Boyd was not responsible for constructing the guardrails. After Boyd completed its contract, the state and federal authorities conducted a final inspection. Finally, in 1963, Boyd was given a full, final release from all liability under the contracts as well as from all public liability. In response to this affidavit, McKay submitted two affidavits. The first was from Henry L. Munch, a president of a construction company in Wisconsin. He has over thirty years experience in the field and his firm has been constructing federal, state, county and local roads in the Wisconsin area since 1957. The affiant stated that he had reviewed the appropriate guidelines applicable for the period when the Strong River Bridge was constructed, and he refuted the assertion in Boyd's affidavit that the bridge in question without guardrails on the end and located within 23 inches of the roadway were proper. The second affidavit was provided by Kenneth C. Kloiber, an engineer from Wisconsin with approximately thirty years experience. He stated no more than Munch's affidavit, and his affidavit was prepared to refute the contention that the bridge in question over the Strong River ... was built within the AASHO guidelines as set forth by the opposition. Based on these affidavits the trial judge granted this summary judgment motion finding as a matter of law that no genuine issues of material fact existed. No issues existed because Boyd had received a full, final release.