Bedford v. Bechtel Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 17900,17900 |
| Citation | 342 P.2d 495,172 Cal.App.2d 401 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Karol Lyn BEDFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Oliver JACOBS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Lesslie E. HOGAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PECHTEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Patrick BENNINGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Cyril LEFEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Richard S. MORGAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Richard E. SCHADROW, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and respondents. |
Bruce Walkup, Dan L. Garrett, Jr., San Francisco (Cyril Viadro, San Francisco, of counsel), for appellants.
Bledsoe, Smith, Cathcart, Johnson & Phelps, San Francisco (Wilbur J. Russ, San Francisco, of counsel), for respondents.
Plaintiffs are six employees and the widow and a child of a deceased employee of Consolidated Western Steel which was hired as an independent contractor to erect certain oil storage tanks for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The injuries occurred as a result of the manner in which Consolidated Western Steel used its equipment during the course of construction. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Bechtel Corporation are liable to them for this claimed negligence on the part of Consolidated Western Steel. The case was tried before a court and jury. At the end of the plaintiffs' case the court granted motions for nonsuit upon the ground that plaintiffs had failed to prove the violation of any duty owed by the defendants.
The sole question upon this appeal is whether or not either of the defendants owed a duty to any of these employees of Consolidated.
The Contracts and the Accident.
The P. G. & E. Co. entered into a contract with Bechtel Corporation to design and construct a steam electric power plant near Morro Bay. It was contemplated by the parties that Bechtel might have some of the work done by subcontractors and that the P. G. & E. Co. might let out some of the work directly to contractors.
The P. G. & E. Co. entered into a contract with Consolidated Western Steel Division wherein it was agreed that
'Contractor will at its own risk and expense perform the work hereinafter described and, except as herein otherwise provided, will furnish all labor, equipment and materials required therefor: To furnish, fabricate and erect two (2) fuel oil storage tanks for the Company's Morro Bay Steam plant * * * All work shall be performed in accordance with Specification 4360A, Drawing 410511-7, and Contractor's proposal of December 18, 1953.'
It was further agreed in part as follows:
'Contractor [Consolidated Western Steel Division] is an independent contractor, and all persons employed by Contractor in connection herewith will be employees of Contractor, and not employees of Company [P. G. & E.] or Constructor [Bechtel Corp.] in any respect.
'Bechtel Corporation as Engineer and Constructor for Company will act in behalf of Company and all questions or claims by Contractor shall be handled through the Constructor.
'11. Safety Precautions:
'(a) The Contractor shall plan and conduct his work so as to safeguard adequately all persons from injury, and all property from damage.
'(b) In planning and maintaining safe working conditions and safety facilities, the Contractor shall give due consideration to the following:
'(1) The Constructor will be required to maintain in efficient order and operate without interruption such portions of the plant and equipment as must be placed in operation prior to completion of the entire station.
'(2) Construction work by others may be carried on in conjunction with the work of this Contractor and frequently may occupy the same working area.
'(c) To enforce the intent of these specifications, the Constructor may require the Contractor to install additional safeguards and observe such special safety precautions as appear to be necessary. Special instructions given by the Constructor shall not relieve Contractor of its responsibility to maintain safe and efficient working conditions.
'12. Scaffolding:
'The contractor shall not use any scaffolding or other temporary elevated structures for the support of workmen or materials that have been furnished or erected by the Constructor or by the other Contractors unless authorized by the Constructor so to do. The Contractor shall pass upon the safety of all such structures before using and shall assume all risk and responsibility in using same whether the structures are provided by the Constructor or others.
'14. Insurance and Indemnity:
'(a) Contractor shall indemnify Company and Constructor against any and all loss, damage and liability for injury or harm to person or property resulting from, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance hereof, excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely by the fault or negligence of either Company or Constructor, or both.'
Plaintiffs, employees of Consolidated, were engaged in the construction of a fuel oil storage tank at Morro Bay, when they were injured. The tank was one of two being built by Consolidated for P. G. & E. under the above mentioned contracts. The finished tanks were to be 195 feet in diameter and 32 feet high. The accident occurred on August 25, 1954, at approximately 11 a. m. There was little or nor wind and the weather was good. Work on the tanks had begun in June of 1954. By August 25th, one tank had been completed, except for the roof, and Consolidated was working on the top ring of the second tank.
The top ring consisted of 18 plates, each weighing in excess of one ton and approximately 32 feet long and 8 feet high. These plates were in place and been welded along the vertical seams (with the exception of one joint). In preparation for the welding of the horizontal seam, the ring had to be aligned. The fitting and alignment was to be accomplished with a 'bull' (a U-shaped pneumatic device weighing approximately one ton) which was guided around the top of the ring and hammered the ring into place. In connection with this operation a workman would precede the 'bull' by 10 or 15 feet and knock out the wedges and spacers which held the plate in position. Working immediately behind the 'bull,' a welder would tack or spot weld th horizontal seams together until such time as they could be welded by the automatic welder.
All the plaintiffs were then at work on the ring though none had anything to do with the operation of the 'bull.' At the time of the accident, six of the plaintiffs were working on the outside surface of the tank and plaintiff Benninger was on a catwalk inside of the tank. The operation of the 'bull' was sufficient to shake the ring and cause it to vibrate. The 'bull' had been in operation about three hours and had covered approximately one-third of the inside circumference when just ahead of the 'bull,' several plates tipped inward and began to peel off. The falling plates hit the staging on the inside of the tank and caused most of the ring to collapse and fall into the bottom of the tank. This accident occasioned the injuries upon which these actions were brought.
There is evidence tending to indicate that the accident could have been averted with the use of proper precautions. Expert testimony was introduced to show that in the construction of tanks of unusual size, problems of instability are acute and that necessary stabilization can be achieved through the use of additional support (guy wires).
Defendants Violated No Duty Owed Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' first theory is that the authority which Consolidated gave to Bechtel to 'require' Consolidated 'to install additional safeguards and observe such special safety precautions as appear to be necessary' (§ 11(c) of the contract) imposed a duty upon Bechtel to exercise that authority by so instructing Consolidated whenever safeguards and safety precautions additional to those being observed Consolidated seemed necessary,--a duty to be exercised by Bechtel for the benefit of all persons who might come near the site of Consolidated's operations, including Consolidated's own employees.
Additionally to that theory, plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or should have known that the method Consolidated was using to erect the tanks was unsafe, and therefore defendants had a duty to require Consolidated to take the necessary precautions.
Plaintiffs' first theory would require a strained construction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ulwelling v. Crown Coach Corp.
...in them such control over the equipment or its operations as to impose on them any obligation to a third person. (Bedford v. Bechtel Corp., 172 Cal.App.2d 401, 342 P.2d 495; McDonald v. Shell Oil Co., 44 Cal.2d 785, 285 P.2d 902; Sabin v. Union Oil Co., 150 Cal.App.2d 606, 310 P.2d 685.) Mo......
-
Chesin Const. Co. v. Epstein
...& Davidson, Inc., 241 Ark. 525, 412 S.W.2d 621 (1966), on rehearing 242 Ark. 97, 412 S.W.2d 621, 626 (1967); Bedford v. Bechtel Corp., 172 Cal.App.2d 401, 342 P.2d 495 (1959); Potter v. City of kenosha, 268 Wis. 361, 68 N.W.2d 4 All of the above-cited opinions are in the area of constructio......
-
Golden v. Conway
...52 Cal.2d 135, 139, 338 P.2d 392; McDonald v. Shell Oil Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 785, 788--789, 285 P.2d 902; and Bedford v. Bechtel Corp. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 401, 407, 342 P.2d 495, overruled on other grounds Woolen v. Aerojet Gen'l. Corp. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 407, 20 Cal.Rptr. 12, 369 P.2d 708.......
-
Kuntz v. Mitchell Steel, Inc.
...Elevator Co., 214 Cal. 733, 739, 7 P.2d 1013; McCall v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 123 Cal. 42, 44, 55 P. 706.)' Bedford v. Bechtel Corp., 172 Cal.App.2d 401, 411, 342 P.2d 495, 501: 'In Hard v. Hollywood Turf Club, 1952, 112 Cal.App.2d 263, 246 P.2d 716, the employees of a painting subcontrac......