Court Opinion

ID: 9548183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:58:54.773249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:35.557214
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.,
concurring: The statute (K. S. A. 44-503), in defining the responsible area of CRA, Inc. in this case does not refer to “a reasonable incident of the trade or business,” or whether the work being done was “such as would have ordinarily been performed by the employees of the principal,” or whether it was “ancillary or incidental” or “germane and pertinent” to the principal’s trade or business. It states in simple and unqualified terms, “any work which is a part of his trade or business.” What was the trade or business of CRA, Inc. as disclosed by the record? One need look only to the affidavit of the president to ascertain without qualification that its trade or business was the work of operating an oil refinery to produce lubricating oil and other products. This classification does not include the work of constructing a metal building or shed on its refinery site. (Purkable v. Greenland Oil Co., 122 Kan. 720, 253 Pac. 219.) Ruilding the metal shed had nothing to do with the trade or business of CRA, Inc., and that work was no part of integral equipment necessary to operate the refinery. (Lessley v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 171 Kan. 197, 231 P. 2d 239.) Moreover, it was Contractor Lynch’s business to construct the metal shed and it was the trade and büsiness of CRA, Inc. to use the building after it was constructed. (Hataway v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co., 195 Kan. 335, 405 P. 2d 350.
I would reverse the judgment of the district court and direct CRA, Inc. to file its answer and proceed to trial on the question of its negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence, if any.