Alsadi v. Intel Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-16-03738-PHX-DGC,CV-16-03738-PHX-DGC |
| Citation | 519 F.Supp.3d 611 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
| Parties | Ahmad ALSADI and Youssra Lahlou, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. |
Aaron Michael Dawson, Anita Rosenthal, Sander Ruggill Dawson, Steven C. Dawson, Dawson & Rosenthal PC, Sedona, AZ, Frederic Gary Lemberg, Susan Ali Bassal, Law Office of Frederic C. Lembers, Scottsdale, AZ, Scott B. Seymann, Steven Jay German, Begam Marks & Traulsen PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs.
Alexander Pascal Swanson, Pro Hac Vice, Patrick Ward Dennis, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Curtis Marshall Bergen, Kendall Douglas Steele, Michael Warzynski, Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL JUDGMENT
The Court held a bench trial by remote teleconferencing on January 25 through February 1, 2021. This order will set forth the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). The headings of each section of this order will specify which portions are findings, conclusions, or mixed findings and conclusions. The Court will also rule on Defendant's post-trial motions.
This is a close case, but after applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Intel, although not in the amount of damages they requested at trial.
Defendant Intel Corporation owns an industrial wastewater system ("IWS") housed in the CH8 building of its technology development campus in Chandler, Arizona. The IWS is located on the first floor of CH8, referred to as the "subfab," with a fabrication operation on the second floor that produces wastewater. The IWS removes metals and other harmful substances from the wastewater before discharging it into the Chandler sewer system.
Intel contracts with Jones Lange LaSalle ("JLL") to operate the IWS and perform other technical work on the Chandler campus, including heating and air conditioning ("HVAC") and electrical work. Plaintiff Ahmad Alsadi worked for JLL as a HVAC technician at the Chandler campus.
Plaintiff Alsadi and his wife, Youssra Lahlou, bring negligence claims against Intel to recover damages for inhalation injuries allegedly suffered by Alsadi on the evening of February 28, 2016. Due to an error by a JLL technician, the IWS system emitted hydrogen sulfide ("H2S") into the air within and outside the CH8 building that evening. Alsadi was working in the CN3 building immediately south of CH8 and was exposed to H2S. Plaintiffs allege that this exposure caused chronic and debilitating impairments that have eliminated Alsadi's ability to work and engage in normal life activities.1
The parties agree that this diversity case is governed by Arizona law. To establish Intel's liability for negligence, Plaintiffs must prove (1) a duty requiring Intel to conform to a certain standard of care, (2) breach of that duty by Intel, (3) a causal connection between Intel's breach and Alsadi's injuries, and (4) actual damages. See Gipson v. Kasey , 214 Ariz. 141, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007) ; Torres v. Jai Dining Servs. (Phoenix) Inc. , 250 Ariz. 147, 476 P.3d 327, 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). The Court will address each of these elements in the sections that follow.
Duty is an "obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm." Gipson , 150 P.3d at 230 (citation omitted). Intel correctly notes that an Arizona landowner generally "owes no non-delegable duty to the injured employee of a contractor ... to provide a safe work place." Rause v. Paperchine, Inc. , 743 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1122 (D. Ariz. 2010) ; see Lee v. M & H Enters., Inc. , 237 Ariz. 172, 347 P.3d 1153, 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). Plaintiffs argue that Intel owed Alsadi various duties under Restatement § 414 because Intel retained some control over JLL's work.
Section 414 addresses the liability of a landowner based on a theory of retained control:
One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the [landowner] owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 (1965). "To trigger liability under Restatement § 414, a landowner ‘must have retained some measure of control not over the premises of the work site, but over the actual work performed.’ " Lee , 347 P.3d at 1159 (quoting Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enters., Inc. , 170 Ariz. 384, 825 P.2d 5, 11 (1992) ).2
Arizona courts have provided guidance on the level of control a landowner must exercise to be subject to a duty under § 414. Day-to-day control over the details of the work is not required. Lewis , 825 P.2d at 11. Arizona courts instead look to comment (a) in § 414, which states that a landowner:
may retain only the power to direct the order in which the work shall be done, or to forbid its being done in a manner likely to be dangerous to ... others. Such a supervisory control may not subject him to liability under the principles of Agency, but he may be liable under the rule stated in [ § 414 ] unless he exercises his supervisory control with reasonable care so as to prevent the work which he has ordered to be done from causing injury to others.
Restatement § 414, cmt. a.
Thus, a landowner will be subject to a duty of due care under § 414 if it retains "supervisory control" over the work, such as "the power to direct the order in which the work shall be done" or to "forbid its being done" in an unsafe manner. Id. Plaintiffs argue that Intel retained such control over IWS-related operations at the Chandler campus. The Court agrees.3
Intel originally contracted with an outside company to pick up the Chandler facility's wastewater and transport it offsite for treatment, but later decided to construct and operate the IWS. Although Intel employed JLL to operate the IWS, it designated its own employee, Dr. Thomas Abia, as the system "owner." Dr. Abia was responsible for engineering, operation, and failure of the IWS, for system up-time, and for solving system problems. Intel made all decisions on chemicals used in the system and how they were to be mixed.
Michael Torbert, a JLL employee, testified that Intel provided JLL with operating parameters for the system. JLL applied those parameters and could not change them without Intel's approval. Dr. Abia established all set points for equipment within the IWS, and JLL could not change set points without his approval. Dr. Abia agreed during his testimony that ultimately it was Intel's responsibility to make sure the IWS was working properly.
Jennifer Francis, an industrial hygienist within Intel's Environmental Health and Safety ("EHS") unit, testified that Intel monitored emissions from the IWS to determine if they were exceeding health and safety limits, that Intel established exposure controls for the system, and that JLL did not have an industrial hygienist. Intel made the decision to disable hydrogen cyanide monitors that were alerting to the presence of H2S and not to replace them with H2S monitors. Torbert testified that JLL had no authority to install monitors in CH8 without Intel's approval. John MacDonald, Intel's Emergency Response Team ("ERT") leader for shift 4 – the shift when Alsadi was injured – testified that Intel decided when to declare an emergency due to off-gassing from the IWS system.
The Court finds that Intel retained supervisory control over the operation, maintenance, and safety of the IWS system. It retained "the power to direct the order in which the work shall be done" and to "forbid its being done" in an unsafe manner. Lewis , 825 P.2d at 12. It further retained control over the monitoring of emissions from the IWS and the health and safety of workers in the vicinity of the IWS.
Intel had a duty to exercise these controls with reasonable care.
Intel does not dispute that it retained control over the ventilation system in CH8. See Doc. 300 at 14, ¶ 7. Intel employee Scott Graunke testified that Intel owns the ventilation system. Doc. 356-3. He further testified that the system must be robust to remove contaminants generated by the IWS, and that Intel seeks to ensure that it does. Id. Dr. Abia testified that box fans belonging to Intel were mounted in the south wall of CH8 and blew exhaust from the building in the direction of CN3. Doc. 368 at 75.
Francis, Intel's industrial hygienist, testified that she recommended that some portions of the IWS use a direct exhaust system to capture emissions from the IWS (Doc. 370 at 221-22), and the evidence demonstrated that Intel was responsible for making the decision on whether and when to install exhaust systems. The evidence further demonstrated that Intel monitored emissions from the IWS to determine if they were exceeding health and safety limits, and established exposure controls for the system.
The Court finds that Intel retained supervisory control over the operation, design, and maintenance of the CH8 ventilation system. Intel had a duty to exercise this control with reasonable care.
Intel does not dispute that it retained control over emergency evacuations on the Chandler campus. See Doc. 300 at 14, ¶ 9. Intel designated evacuation routes and locations, marked them with green arrows on the ground and signs at gathering points, trained its employees on evacuation procedures, and required JLL to train JLL employees on those procedures. Intel also retained the authority to declare...
To continue reading
Request your trial