Court Opinion

ID: 7824140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:03:03.285942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:48.928621
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority that the appellant has demonstrated error by the trial court which requires reversal. Appellant contends that when an employee of a subcontractor is injured on the job site and sues the general contractor, the giving of AMI 1104 or 1106 is “mandatory,” not by reason of the particular circumstances of the case, but by virtue of the relationship between the parties. There are no cases from this court, nor, so far as I can determine, from other jurisdictions which hold that an employee of a subcontractor is, ipso facto, a business visitor or invitee of the general contractor. Certainly nothing cited in the majority opinion so holds. I submit that is not the law and ought not to be. The duty owing by the general contractor depends upon the particular facts of the case, the issue being whether the general contractor has that degree of control and possession of the area where an injury occurs that it can be said there is a duty to maintain such premises in a reasonably safe condition. Thus the duty arises not simply from the relationship, but from the responsibilities undertaken. The general contractor in control of a structure or premises owes to the employees of any other contractor rightfully thereon a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the structure or premises in a safe condition for their use. This duty, however, is coextensive only with the general contractor’s possession and control of the premises — that is, it devolves upon him because of the control undertaken or exercised by him, rather than merely because of his position as general contractor. [My emphasis.] 13 Am. Jur. 2d Building and Construction Contracts § 135. The rule is correctly stated in Kennedy v. United States Construction Co., 545 F.2d 81 (1976): If a general contractor retains control over the premises where a subcontractor is working, then the general contractor owes a duty to employees of the subcontractor to use ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the use of those employees. The “premises” where appellant’s injury occurred consisted of a metal stairway which appellant’s own employer installed, consisting of steps fashioned like a rectangular dish or pan into which concrete was to be poured. Another subcontractor was to pour the concrete. The majority opinion states that it was the responsibility of the general contractor to notify the other subcontractor when to pour the concrete. I find nothing in the record as abstracted to support this assertion, but assuming it to be correct, standing alone it would hardly override every other consideration as to who controlled the premises. We do not know whether the other subcontractor had been notified or even whether it was time for the concrete to be poured. In short, it is clear that whether the general contractor or one or more subcontractors was responsible for maintaining these premises was a factual issue. The trial court heard the proof in its entirety and rejected the theory that AMI 1104 or 1106 was “mandatory.” Appellant has not shown that ruling to have been erroneous. The majority seems to concede that appellant was entitled, at most, only to a modified version of AMI 1104, but impliedly puts the responsibility on the trial judge to make that alteration. However, that responsibility expressly rests on the litigant, not the trial judge. Even if it could be assumed the appellant’s proof justified an instruction patterned after AMI 1104 he failed to present a proper instruction to the trial court. ARCP Rule 51; Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Wallace, 290 Ark. 589, 721 S.W.2d 659 (1986); Curtis Communications v. Collar, 11 Ark. App. 14, 665 S.W.2d 301 (1984). Appellant took the; position that AMI 1104 was “mandatory” by reason of the relationship between the parties. That was a mistaken assumption of the law and it follows that the trial court should be affirmed.