Scarborough v. Ridgeway, 82-2156

• Decision Date: 17 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-2156,82-2156
• Citation: 726 F.2d 132
• Parties: Susan F. SCARBOROUGH, in her individual capacity, and as next friend and for the use of Barry L. Scarborough, Jr., a minor, Stephen Scarborough, a minor, and Victoria Scarborough, a minor, and as the administratrix of the estate of the late Barry L. Scarborough, Appellees, v. Glenn W. RIDGEWAY, Former Electrical Supervisor, University of Maryland, Appellant, v. M.C. DEAN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC. and Howard L. Rivenbark, Appellees. Susan F. Scarborough, et al., Amicus Curiae.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 132

726 F.2d 132

Susan F. SCARBOROUGH, in her individual capacity, and as

next friend and for the use of Barry L. Scarborough, Jr., a

minor, Stephen Scarborough, a minor, and Victoria

Scarborough, a minor, and as the administratrix of the estate of the late Barry L. Scarborough, Appellees, v. Glenn W. RIDGEWAY, Former Electrical Supervisor, University

of Maryland, Appellant, v. M.C. DEAN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC. and Howard L.

Rivenbark, Appellees.

Susan F. Scarborough, et al., Amicus Curiae.

No. 82-2156.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 31, 1983.

Decided Jan. 17, 1984.

Paul F. Strain, Deputy Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md. (Jeanne D. Hitchcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellant.

Stephen J. Hadley, Washington, D.C. (John D. Aldock, Jeffrey C. Martin, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D.C., on brief), as amicus curiae.

William O. Lockwood, Rockville, Md. (Darah P. Kehnemuyi, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellees.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge:

This appeal presents an issue of contractual indemnification. The district court ruled that the indemnification language of a construction contract between an electrical contractor and the State of Maryland did not require the contractor (and its insurer) to pay a judgment, obtained by the estate and the surviving dependents of a deceased employee of the contractor, against a state employee whose negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent's death.

We reverse.

I.

Barry Scarborough was an employee of M.C. Dean Electrical Contracting, Inc. (Dean). Dean was employed by the State of Maryland to convert the electrical system of the University of Maryland, College Park, from one with a 4,200-volt capacity to one with a 13,200-volt capacity. Scarborough died as the result of injuries he suffered on February 12, 1977 while he was engaged in the reconnection of three high-voltage switch cubicles and performance of the phase rotation test on the system.

After Scarborough's death his estate, his wife and his minor children sued Glenn W. Ridgeway, foreman of the electrical shop at the University of Maryland, alleging that Ridgeway's failure to carry out his responsibilities in connection with the Dean contract was a proximate cause of Scarborough's death. Ridgeway filed a third-party complaint against Dean for contractual indemnification and against Dean's electrical foreman, Howard L. Rivenbark, for contribution. The Scarboroughs then obtained a judgment against Ridgeway for $468,249.00 and against Rivenbark for contribution. Because those judgments were not appealed, the sole issue before us is the district court's ruling denying Ridgeway's claim for contractual indemnification from Dean.

Article 23.a of the contract between Dean and the State provided:

a. Responsibility for Damage Claims

The contractor shall indemnify and save harmless and defend the State and all of its representatives from all suits, actions, or claims of any character brought on account of any injuries or damages sustained by any person or property in consequence of any work performed under this contract, either by the contractor or any subcontractor, or their employees, agents, or representatives. (Emphasis supplied).

The evidence with respect to the role played by Ridgeway showed that as the electrical foreman at the University, he supervised thirty-four electrical helpers and was responsible for the overall electrical service on the College Park campus. He was the University's liaison with Dean and the University's inspector and overseer. He had informally been designated as such at a preconstruction conference between Dean's representatives and representatives of the University, and he occupied that role as the work under the contract progressed. Stated summarily, he performed the liaison and monitoring function so as to protect the interests and property of the University, to carry out certain inspections, to minimize the interruption to the University's overall electrical service during the performance of the contract and to assure proper access to the University's buildings and equipment by Dean as well as their care.

The day on which Scarborough received his fatal injuries was the day of completion of the Reckord Armory high-voltage switch-gear modification. A new high-voltage switch, a cubicle the size of a telephone booth, was added and two existing high-voltage switches were realigned to facilitate the conversion. That work included two important steps: the reconnection of three high-voltage switch cubicles, and the conduct of a phase rotation test to insure that the cables carrying alternating current were connected in the proper sequence so as not to damage the electrical equipment that they fed. Ridgeway was the University's representative who inspected the connection and he monitored the phase rotation test. Indeed he was present on the site in the high-voltage switch room when Scarborough, who was inside a high-voltage cubicle making a connection, came in contact with a live electrical buss bar, and he was the one who pulled the unconscious Scarborough from the cubicle.

While the district court appeared to have no difficulty in concluding that Ridgeway had a connection with the contract and the work performed thereunder, it nonetheless concluded that Ridgeway was not within the group of persons promised indemnity under Article 23.a. It did rule, however, that the contract was not void either as a contract of adhesion or one in violation of Maryland law, Ann.Code of Md., Cts. and Jud.Pro., Sec. 5-305 (1980), prohibiting contractual agreements in the construction trade which purport to indemnify the indemnitee for his sole negligence.

II.

We approach the decision in this case as one involving a question of law. Thus we reject...