Court Opinion

ID: 9674716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:34:17.633048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.337472
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtie, Justice, dissenting. In my opinion, the facts of this case are adequately stated in the majority opinion. This dissent is based upon the contract between respondent and the independent contractor, Johnson Construction Company. The owner-respondent specifically reserved the right to control the number of employees doing the work for Johnson. It also retained control over the quality and type of equipment to be used on the job. Additionally, it reserved the right to inspect and approve, as well as to effectually supervise, the working conditions of Johnson’s employees. The complaint alleged respondent was negligent in failing to require the independent contractor to provide adequate tools and equipment, sufficient safety devices, and proper supervision of the employees of Johnson. The above duties and responsibilities were reserved to the respondent in the written contract. The complaint further alleged that the respondent was engaged in an inherently dangerous type of work which by common law required the respondent to exera high degree of care regardless of the contract between it and Johnson. The judgment in the trial court did not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. Apparently, the judgment was entered upon the theory that an employee of an independent contractor could not sue the owner. This simply is not the law as I understand it. An owner or prime contractor may be liable to an employee of a subcontractor or independent contractor when the prime contractor or owner is guilty of negligence by failure to use ordinary care or to warn the employees of unusually hazardous conditions which might affect the employees’ safety. Aluminum Ore Company v. George, 208 Ark. 419, 186 S.W. 2d 656 (1945). Certainly, the complaint, with all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, stated a cause of action. After the interrogatories and testimony, I do not feel that all such inferences were removed. The trial court must review the record, on motion for summary judgment, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and all doubts are resolved against the moving party. New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Quilantan, 263 Ark. 892, 569 S.W. 2d 102 (1978). In my opinion, the owner reserved the right to completely control the performance of the work and, in doing so, placed itself in a position of being responsible for its negligence which may not have been true in the absence of these provisions of the contract. It appears to me the facts could be interpreted to reveal the respondent simply placed the independent contractor in a position to insulate itself against the exact type of negligence and disability claimed by the petitioner. In other words, it attempted to contract away its negligence and common law duty to the petitioner. It was the respondent who actually directed the work and controlled the conditions and equipment which were being used at the time the petitioner was injured. It was not the independent contractor’s negligence which caused the injuries of petitioner, or at least the jury may have so found. I think the respondent was the prime contractor on this project and certainly would be responsible for acts of negligence or failure to perform duties which it owed to petitioner. Without prolonging this dissent, I will simply state that I believe there remained a genuine issue of fact which should have been left to the jury to decide.