Opinion ID: 445253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 4 AMF asserts that Jenkins and Johnson failed to establish the necessary elements of duty and causation required by Sec. 324A, attacking the sufficiency of the evidence. In such an instance, the scope of our review is limited. If the state of the proof is such that reasonable and impartial minds could reach the conclusion expressed in the jury's verdict, we must not disturb the jury's findings on appeal. Carlton v. Shelton, 722 F.2d 203, 205 (5th Cir.1984), citing Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105 (5th Cir.1979). 5 The first inquiry under Sec. 324A is whether AMF, the parent corporation, had a duty to protect Tuboscope's employees. Such a duty exists when the defendant has undertaken to inspect the specific instrument causing the injury or to inspect the entire plant of which that instrument was a part.... Patentas v. United States, 687 F.2d 707, 716 (3d Cir.1982). 6 AMF's argument focuses on whether its representatives performed inspections of the ball mill involved in the explosion. 2 This argument is too restrictive. The duty may be established by a showing that AMF undertook inspection of the entire plant. AMF's Manager of Accident Prevention and Safety Training testified that he inspected the area where the accident occurred several times during the years preceding the accident, during the course of a safety audit of the entire complex. The AMF safety representative styled his inspections a walk through. He further testified that he knew of the ball mill procedures and was aware that explosive and highly flammable solvents were being used. The record reflects sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that AMF had undertaken to inspect the entire Tuboscope plant for conformity to safety practices and procedures. 7 The second inquiry is whether the proven breach of the found duty was the proximate cause of the injuries. A plaintiff can satisfy this burden by proving either (1) that defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of harm, or (2) that defendant undertook to perform a duty owed by the employer to the employee, or (3) that the plaintiff's harm was a result of reliance by the employer or the injured employee upon the undertaking. Tillman v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 506 F.2d 917 (5th Cir.1975). A showing of the existence of any one of the alternative conditions suffices. 8 AMF's safety manager testified that his duties included review and approval of the broad spectrum of safety practices and procedures at AMF subsidiaries. His duties encompassed all personnel safety. In other words, I'm part of the human resources. And as such, we take care of personnel safety. This AMF representative expected his safety directives and suggestions to be followed and implemented. That expectation was met. Tuboscope's plant manager testified that he relied upon the AMF safety representatives for accident prevention and safety training and followed any recommendations made concerning safety at the Tuboscope facility. Similarly, the production foreman for the coating manufacturing unit where the accident occurred testified that Tuboscope personnel relied upon the expertise of AMF's safety division in matters relating to safety. From the evidence presented, the jury could reasonably find reliance and a lulling into a false sense of security. Thus concluding, we need not address the first two alternatives, for establishment of any of the three is enough to support the jury's findings. 9 Finding sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict imposing liability under Sec. 324A, we AFFIRM.