Opinion ID: 1502235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Schafer

Text: The trial judge granted judgment n.o.v. as to Schafer on the grounds of contributory negligence. Schafer argues to us not only the issue of contributory negligence, but that Schafer owed no duty to Coffey and that there was no legally sufficient evidence of a breach of any duty that might have been owed by Schafer to Coffey. Under Rule 885 and our cases, these points having been argued to and considered by the trial court, we are permitted to base our decision on them rather than on the issue of contributory negligence. See, e.g., Offutt v. Montgomery Co. Bd. of Ed., 285 Md. 557, 563-64, 404 A.2d 281 (1979); Robeson v. State, 285 Md. 498, 501-04, 403 A.2d 1221 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1021 (1980); State v. Raithel, 285 Md. 478, 482, 404 A.2d 264 (1979); Mont. Co. v. Md. Soft Drink Ass'n, 281 Md. 116, 122, 377 A.2d 486 (1977); Panamerican Co. v. Broun, 238 Md. 438, 447, 209 A.2d 575 (1965); and Kent v. Mer.-Safe Dep. & Tr. Co., 225 Md. 590, 593, 171 A.2d 723 (1961). The full allegation against Schafer was that it was engaged and undertook to perform inspection and testing work which included the responsibility to inspect and test the design and manufacture of all steel beams used in said construction by structural iron workers such as ... Coffey [] so that said steel beams would be free from defects and irregularities that made their use unsafe and unfit for incorporation into the building under construction; that Coffey's fall was caused by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence and wanton disregard of the rights of [Coffey] by ... Schafer [] through its agents, servants and/or employees in a number of regards including intentionally, and with malicious disregard for the rights of [Coffey], permitting to be used a welded clip and seat type connection, as a temporary fastening device, in construction involving the use of structural steel, in violation of Article 63 [sic][ [1] ], Section 54D of the ... Code of Maryland (1957), and [i]n negligently permitting to be attached said `Saxe Clips' to the steel beams by `tac welding', contrary to standards in the trade. It was alleged that Schafer failed to exercise the customary and usual skill, knowledge and expertise of a reasonably competent testing laboratory, in connection with the inspection of steel beams supplied to construction site; to make known to [Coffey] hidden dangers, of which [Schafer] was aware or had reason to be aware, with regard to the design and manufacture of steel beams used by [Coffey]; to furnish, or cause to be furnished, steel beams and component parts of steel beams of suitable grade, size and quality, free from defects and irregularities, which made their use unsafe and unfit for incorporation into the building under construction; and to properly inspect the design and manufacture of steel beams, to insure that each beam was being designed and manufactured by such methods and with such materials, as to result in a safe beam, suitable for the use to which it was intended.... Schafer was invited by the architect to submit a proposal for the inspection and testing of the shop fabricated and erected structural steel in accordance with AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). Accordingly, it submitted a proposal [t]o furnish all necessary labor, equipment, services, and reports required to perform the shop and field inspection of the approximately 657 tons of structural steel, the services to include performing all inspections in accordance with the approved specifications, the AISC Code of Standard Practice, and the latest applicable codes and specifications. This was accepted by the architect on [its] assumption that two specified conditions would be met, namely: 1. The inspection of shop fabricated structural steel members will be in accordance with approved shop drawings and specifications, including checking for grade of steel, size of sections, lengths, dimensions and character of workmanship, checking connections, bolted or welded in accordance with AISC or AWS codes. 2. The field inspection of structural steel will include the examination of all sections checking for fit and alignment, plumb of columns, installation of high strength bolts as required and torquing of same to specification requirements. All field welded joints will be examined visually and gauged for size quality and adherence to AWS standards. It will be noted that none of this specifed inspection for safety or the prescribing of any safety measures. Lawrence Iacarino, who did the actual inspection for Schafer, was one of the witnesses called by Coffey. He said, It's not the Saxe Clips that I was supposed to be doing. It was the procedures of the shop that I'm to inspect and see that they live up to. George Evans, the structural engineer for the project, was another witness called by Coffey. He was asked whether it was contemplated that the inspections by Schafer would be actually on the job or in the shop eight hours a day checking each item. He replied: A No, sir. What we expected of the testing agency was that they would establish a level of quality of workmanship so that welders were qualified, that welders have a very definite procedure, which they go through to be qualified as a welder; and what they do, is they, an inspection agency maintains a quality of workmanship in the shop rather than inspecting every piece. In other words, what  if you don't have full-time inspection so that the inspector sees it as it comes off the production line it's impossible to inspect every piece, just physically impossible. And what we're after, and what we're buying in the allowance here is quality control. What we're after is  is the quality of workmanship in that shop, such that it can be an acceptable end product can be produced. He indicated that this was the usual and customary practice of th[o]se companies that make inspections to do what [he had] just testified to. The accident in this case took place when an attempt was being made to connect a beam to a column. A Saxe Clip connector broke off, causing the beam to tilt and throwing Coffey to the ground. Coffey asserts, The proximate cause of [his] fall was the fact that the Saxe Clip was tack-welded to the vertical column, contrary to the contractual obligations of ... Derby ... and established safety standards. We had occasion in Krieger v. J.E. Greiner Co., 282 Md. 50, 382 A.2d 1069 (1978), to examine the law relative to contracts of supervising engineers and their liability to an employee injured on the job. We pointed out: There is a decided split of authority as to whether an architect or engineer responsible for day to day supervision of a construction project is liable to a workman for unsafe working conditions or liable to others for yet other shortcomings of a contractor. .. . Although there is no clear majority view, it would appear that the weight of authority is on the side of nonliability. [ Id. at 58-59 (citations omitted).] We said for the engineer to be liable to an injured workman it was necessary to find a breach of a duty by the engineer to the workman and that such duty must arise either under a contractual provision placing that responsibility on the engineer or it had to be found that the engineer had assumed responsibility for safety. There is no contention in this case that Schafer has assumed any responsibility for safety. Schafer's contract was one to guarantee a final work product, not one to assure safety. The sum total of the evidence adduced by Coffey in this case fails to show any breach of duty on the part of Schafer to Coffey or to anyone else. It follows, therefore, that the trial judge was correct in entering a judgment n.o.v. in favor of Schafer against Coffey et al. Judgment affirmed; appellant to pay the costs.