Court Opinion

ID: 9658214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:51:40.188515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:52.968500
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
The trial court erred in not sustaining the defendant’s, General Growth Development Corporation, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
1. The trial court erred in instructing the jury that General Growth Development Corporation owed the plaintiff, Ferris, the duty of providing him a safe place to work.
The facts here do not support an exception to the general rule that an employer of an independent contractor is not vicariously liable for injuries arising out of the contractor’s negligence.
The majority finds that because Dick Cable had a company trailer on the construction site, was there on a daily basis and was in charge of coordinating all subcontractors and inspecting the work as it was completed, General Growth Development Corporation was in possession of and had control over the premises.
General Growth Development Corporation operated as a general contractor. It had one employee at the building site. It did not do any work on the project nor did they supervise any employees. There is no evidence to support a finding that General Growth Development Corporation exercised day-to-day control over the work. In Clausen v. R. W. Gilbert Construction Co., Inc., 309 N.W.2d 462, 467 (Iowa 1981) (citing Thrasher v. Gerken, 309 N.W.2d 488, 489 (Iowa 1981)), a submission on a general contractor’s duty to provide employees with a safe place to work was ordered where the general contractor contracted to build a porch addition and subcontracted with the injured party’s employer to apply tar on a portion of the roof covering the addition. In Clausen the general contractor was the party actually constructing the roof from which the workman fell and was actually working on the project.
*257The court distinguished Clausen in Thrasher v. Gerken, 309 N.W.2d 488, 489 (Iowa 1981). In Thrasher, Hormel owned land which was turned over to a general contractor. The court rejected the argument that Hormel, in acting as its own architect and in having its own personnel on the premises at all times, remained in possession and exercised control over the project finding the evidence showed that Hormel’s involvement was to make certain that the contract complied with contract specifications.
In deciding Thrasher, the court discussed their holding in Lunde v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 299 N.W.2d 473, 479 (Iowa 1980), where the injured party argued Winnebago, in effect, assumed the role of architect and therefore had the right of control on the project. In Lunde the court rejected the injured party’s argument and said at page 479 “[T]he amount of an owner’s involvement in overseeing the construction must be substantial in order to impose liability under a safe premises theory:
[T]he control which an owner may exert in his general supervisory power over work done at his behest may be a broad general power of supervision without changing a relationship from employer-independent contractor to one of agency. The owner may retain a broad general power of supervision and control as to the results of the work so as to insure satisfactory performance of the independent contract — including the right to inspect, the right to stop the work, the right to make suggestions or recommendations as to details of the work, the right to prescribe alterations or deviations in the work, — without changing the relationship from that of owner and independent contractor or duties arising from that relationship.”

Id.

There is no substantial evidence that would support a finding that General Growth Development Corporation assumed so much control or possession such as would abrogate the independent contractor rule.
2. No contractual liability can be imposed upon General Growth Development Corporation.
I further disagree with the majority’s holding that General Growth Development Corporation had assumed safety responsibility by contract for Farris.
The majority rely on Giarratano v. Weitz Company, 259 Iowa 1292, 147 N.W.2d 824 (1967) for their position. What the majority opinion ignores is the factual distinction between the contracts in Giar-ratano and the case at bar.
In Giarratano the general contractor’s contract with the owner provided “The contractor shall take all necessary precautions for the safety of employees on the work_” 259 Iowa at 1298, 147 N.W.2d 824, 828 (1967).
I fail to find any similar contractual language here and refuse to interrupt the very limited language of Article 5, subsection A, quoted by the majority from the contract involved in this litigation, to constitute an assumption by General Growth Development Corporation of the broad duty of safety for all workmen. Especially when to so abrogates the independent contractors.
I would reverse the trial court and remand with directions to sustain the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.