Opinion ID: 1694824
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Claims Against Jim Walter

Text: The trial court entered a summary judgment for Jim Walter on July 10, 2000. On our review of that summary judgment, we are limited to considering the evidence that was before the trial court when it granted Jim Walter's motion for summary judgment. Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc., 475 So.2d 539, 541-42 (Ala.1985). [5] We review that evidence to determine whether it created a genuine issue of material fact, and, if it does not, whether the movant, Jim Walter, was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. Jim Walter, as the moving party, had the burden of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Lott v. Tarver, 741 So.2d 394, 396 (Ala.1999). In conducting this review, we consider all of the relevant undisputed evidence and we view relevant disputed evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovants, the McGinnises; and we resolve all reasonable doubts against the movant, Jim Walter. Wally's, Inc. v. Intergraph Corp., 727 So.2d 34, 37 (Ala.1998). In their brief, the McGinnises rely on Article 13A, Title 6, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-5-220 to 6-5-228, Actions Against Architects, Contractors, Engineers. They contend that they contracted with Jim Walter to build their home and therefore that Jim Walter is liable under these statutes for the damage to their home and the death of their daughter, both of which resulted from a fire caused by the defective condition of the electrical wiring installed in their home during construction. We cannot, however, consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1992). Therefore, we cannot consider whether Jim Walter could be liable for Takresha's death under Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-5-220 to 6-5-228, because this argument was not presented to the trial court. [6] In their response in opposition to Jim Walter's summary-judgment motion, the McGinnises argued that Jim Walter (1) was vicariously liable for the acts of omissions of Holsombeck, who they say acted as Jim Walter's agent, servant, or employee; (2) was directly liable, based upon what the McGinnises say was a voluntary undertaking to inspect and repair their home ( see Cochran v. Keeton, 47 Ala.App. 194, 252 So.2d 307 (Civ.1970)); and (3) was directly liable because Holsombeck was not competent to install the electrical system in the McGinnis house. A general contractor is not liable for the alleged negligence of an independent contractor. Knight v. Burns, Kirkley & Williams Constr. Co., 331 So.2d 651, 655 (Ala.1976). Whether a relationship is one involving an independent contractor or is a master-servant relationship depends on whether the entity for which the work is being performed has reserved the right of control over the means by which the work is done. Pugh v. Butler Tel. Co., 512 So.2d 1317 (Ala.1987). In the absence of a nondelegable duty, the mere retention of the right to supervise or inspect the work of one who would otherwise be an independent contractor, as the work progresses to ensure compliance with the terms of an agreement, does not operate to create a master-servant relationship. Pugh, 512 So.2d 1317. One must retain control over the manner in which the work is done in order to create a master-servant relationship. Pugh, 512 So.2d 1317. The McGinnises contend that two statements contained in the plans and specifications for the McGinnis house evidence what they describe as the high degree of control they say Jim Walter retained over the details of the work performed on the house: In instances where brand names and/or standards are specified, the builder reserves the right to substitute equivalent quality. Additionally, Jim Walter Homes, Inc., hereby reserves the right to substitute materials of equivalent quality and/or techniques of assembly and/or construction methods from that contained in these plans where necessary to accommodate differences in local codes, geographic customs, option selection and availability of materials. We do not agree. These statements do not demonstrate that Jim Walter retained control over the means by which Holsombeck performed its workonly that Jim Walter retained the right to make changes in the house plans. We conclude that the McGinnises failed to present evidence indicating the existence of a master-servant relationship between Jim Walter and Holsombeck. Thus, Jim Walter cannot be liable for the alleged acts and omissions of Holsombeck, an independent contractor. Knight, 331 So.2d 651. The summary judgment for Jim Walter is affirmed as to the claim that it was vicariously liable for Holsombeck's actions. The McGinnises allege that they repeatedly complained to Jim Walter about the electrical problems and that on two occasions Jim Walter dispatched a representative (one, they say, was identified as the head electrician for Jim Walter) to check out the electrical problems, but that the problems were persistent and were never repaired. The McGinnises rely upon Cochran v. Keeton, 47 Ala.App. 194, 252 So.2d 307, to support their contention that Jim Walter should be held directly liable based upon a voluntary undertaking to inspect and repair their home. In Cochran, the plaintiffs' newly purchased home had a defective condition in the electrical wiring; the defective wiring caused an electrical fire. The builder/seller had sent two electricians out to check for wiring defects. The electricians found various wiring defects and reported their findings to the builder/seller. Thereafter, the builder/seller directed the electricians to correct the defects, but a fire occurred before the repair work could begin. In Cochran, 47 Ala.App. at 200, 252 So.2d at 313, the Court of Civil Appeals stated: [T]here was evidence from which the jury could determine that the promise was undertaken and thus a failure to act reasonably to repair was misfeasance, and if such proximately caused [the Cochrans'] damages, there was a right of recovery. The evidence we refer to has been previously mentioned, and is that [the builder/seller] sent electricians to inspect and recommend action needed. In response to the report of the inspection and recommendations, [the builder/seller] directed that certain repairs be made. Action undertaken, though delayed or performance uncompleted, could constitute negligence, depending upon the necessity, real or apparent, of immediate performance. Jim Walter contends that in Cochran the cornerstone of the court's holding was that the builder/seller had acknowledged the electrical defects and had agreed to repair them, but had failed to act, and its failure to act resulted in a fire. Jim Walter argues that no evidence before the trial court indicated that it either acknowledged any electrical defects or promised to repair any alleged defects; thus, Jim Walter argues, the McGinnises' reliance on Cochran is misplaced. We do not agree that Jim Walter would have to acknowledge some defect and agree to repair that defect before it could be held liable based upon a voluntary undertaking to inspect and repair the electrical problems. The McGinnises point out that the evidence that was before the trial court indicated the following: That the McGinnises' experts inspected the McGinnis home and formulated the opinion that the fire was caused by improper installation of electrical wiring; that the McGinnises had experienced persistent electrical problems with their home; that the McGinnises had reported these persistent electrical problems to Jim Walter; and that on two occasions Jim Walter sent representatives (including the head electrician for Jim Walter) to check out the electrical problems. The [a]ction undertaken ( Cochran, supra) by Jim Walter was its act of sending out representatives to inspect the McGinnis home and to discover the reason for the persistent electrical problems. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the McGinnises, we conclude that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Jim Walter's performance of the [a]ction undertaken was uncompleted ( Cochran, supra) when it failed to discover a reason for the persistent electrical problems in the McGinnis home and to repair the defect, especially in light of the experts' opinion as to the state of the electrical system in the McGinnis home. The trier of fact could find that Jim Walter's failure to discover the reason for the persistent electrical problems and its failure to repair the defect proximately caused the fire that resulted in Takresha's death, or it could find that Jim Walter's failure to discover the reason for the persistent electrical problems did not proximately cause the fire. This question should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. See Yarborough v. Springhill Mem'l Hosp., 545 So.2d 32, 34 (Ala.1989). Therefore, the trial court improperly entered the summary judgment in favor of Jim Walter on the McGinnises' claim alleging a voluntary undertaking; as to that claim the summary judgment is reversed. The McGinnises, relying on Hathcock v. Mitchell, 277 Ala. 586, 595, 173 So.2d 576, 584 (1965), also contend that Jim Walter is directly liable to them because, they say, Jim Walter should hire competent and qualified contractors to complete construction of its homes. The McGinnises point out that the findings of their experts indicate that Holsombeck was clearly not competent to install the electrical system in the McGinnis home and that the state of the electrical system made the McGinnis home unsafe for habitation. However, no evidence presented to the trial court indicated that Holsombeck had a history of negligently installing electrical systems in homes or that Jim Walter either knew, or should have discovered in the exercise of due diligence, that Holsombeck was not competent to install electrical systems in homes. See Lane v. Central Bank of Alabama, N.A., 425 So.2d 1098, 1100 (Ala.1983). Thus, the trial court properly entered the summary judgment for Jim Walter on this claim; as to this claim, the summary judgment is affirmed.