Beck v. Olin Co.
| Decision Date | 26 August 1983 |
| Citation | 437 So.2d 1236 |
| Parties | Damon V. BECK & Cynthia Beck v. The OLIN COMPANY, et al. 81-795. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Warren L. Hammond, Jr. of Conrad, Hammond & Barlar, Mobile, for appellants.
Donald F. Pierce and Davis Carr of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston, Mobile, for appellees Olin Corp., Reese Graves, Charles Humphrey and Allan Chafin.
A. Neil Hudgens and Michael S. McGlothren of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Whitfield & Gillion, Mobile, for appellee Amrich Const. Co.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants in a personal injury action. Plaintiff Damon Beck was injured by caustic chemicals while working on the premises of defendant Olin Corporation.
Damon Beck is employed by Corrosion Proof Construction, a division of the Ceilcote Company. 1 Ceilcote makes coatings used to line storage tanks, walkways, floors, etc., chiefly for resistance to harsh and corrosive chemicals. At the time of the accident, Beck was a foreman for Corrosion Proof Construction, overseeing the application of Ceilcote liners. On April 16, 1979, Beck was sent to McIntosh, Alabama, where he was to supervise preparations for a Ceilcote job at the Olin plant in McIntosh.
The Olin plant includes a chemical production facility known as Mercury Cell Room "B". This is a two story concrete building three hundred feet long with no exterior side walls. Chemicals are produced on the second floor, where the floor is periodically washed down and the residue runs out of the open side of the building. A walkway runs the entire length of the building below the open areas where the chemicals are washed out of the second floor. Chemicals in the runoff had corroded the walkway, and the Ceilcote job for which Beck reported was to repair the sidewalk and coat it with a Ceilcote liner.
To protect the walkway from spills while the concrete and the liner were being applied, Ceilcote arranged with Olin for a protective cover to be built over the walkway. Ceilcote hired Amrich Construction Company to construct this shelter, which consisted of a wooden frame running the length of the building and covered with plastic and fiberglass. The frame was shorter on the side toward the building--about seven feet high, whereas it was about ten feet high on the high side--so that liquids would run off of the shelter into a drainage basin between the walkway and the building. The frame was covered with sheets of polyethylene and then panels of corrugated fiberglass.
When Beck arrived, George Amrich and his crew had completed the wooden frame and had begun covering it with the plastic and fiberglass. The liquids coming out of the building were getting underneath the fiberglass and forming puddles or bubbles in the plastic. Beck testified in deposition that he was aware of at least one place where the liquids had burned or corroded through the fiberglass. In other places it appeared to have leaked around the supporting posts or between the fiberglass panels.
Beck, Amrich, and some Olin employees consulted on how to stop the liquids from penetrating the fiberglass and collecting in the plastic. Reese Graves testified that he and Charles Humphrey decided to have Amrich empty some of the bubbles by tying a knife to a long stick and cutting the plastic. This spilled the fluids onto the walkway, however, so Beck suggested placing another layer of plastic over the fiberglass. He testified on deposition that he was also considering placing plywood or steel over the worst places.
The accident in question occurred when Beck reached up to touch one of the bubbles to learn whether it contained liquid or crystalline matter. Beck had watched crystalline material fall out of the plastic when Amrich cut the bubble underneath the point where the liquids had burned through the fiberglass, so he reasoned that if a bubble contained crystals, the shelter might need extra reinforcement at that point. He placed his palm under the bubble and pushed up on it slightly. As he pulled his hand away, the bubble burst and the liquid in it streamed down on him. He tried to avoid it, but some of it got under his safety goggles and into his left eye. The first aid attendants at the plant rinsed his eye and he was taken to a hospital, but he lost most of his sight from that eye.
Beck sued Olin, Amrich Construction Company, and three supervisory personnel employed by Olin: Reese Graves, Allen Chafin, and Charles Humphrey. The complaint alleged as follows:
Depositions and other discovery were conducted, after which the defendants moved for summary judgment. Beck opposed the motion, basing his opposition on the pleadings, depositions, and exhibits in the case, and the affidavit of George W. Douglas, Ph.D., the head of the department of mechanical engineering at the University of South Alabama. Douglas based his affidavit on the matters of record; he gave his opinion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Staples
...Elder v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 479 So.2d 1243 (Ala.1985); Bacon v. Dixie Bronze Co., 475 So.2d 1177 (Ala.1985); Beck v. Olin Co., 437 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1983); Columbia Eng'g Int'l, Ltd., v. Espey, 429 So.2d 955 (Ala.1983); Weeks v. Alabama Elec. Coop., Inc., 419 So.2d 1381 (Ala.1982)......
-
McGregory v. LLOYD WOOD CONST. CO.
...an injury resulting from a danger that was obvious or that should have been observed in the exercise of reasonable care. Beck v. Olin Co., 437 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1983); Quillen v. Quillen, 388 So.2d 985 (Ala.1980). The entire basis of an invitor's liability rests upon his superior knowledge of......
-
Ramirez v. Alabama Power Co., Civ. No. 94-D-1095-S.
...turns on whether APCo retained or exercised control over the manner in which the tower painting was performed. APCo cites Beck v. Olin Co., 437 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1983), which is factually similar to the instant action. In Beck, a chemical manufacturer hired an independent contractor to apply ......
-
Johns v. Pettibone Corp.
...was open and obvious and, therefore, as a landowner, TVA had no duty to warn invitees of the hazard. The court relied on Beck v. Olin Co., 437 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1983); Hill v. United States Steel Corp., 640 F.2d 9 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1981); and LeSuer v. United States, 617 F.2d 1197 (5th As to......