Blake v. Calumet Const. Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 75A03-9402-CV-83,75A03-9402-CV-83 |
| Citation | 648 N.E.2d 1250 |
| Parties | Emanuel C. BLAKE, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. CALUMET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Appellee-Defendant. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appellant-plaintiff Emanuel C. Blake appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant Calumet Construction Corporation in an action for personal injury damages.
On November 3, 1989, Blake, an employee of Morrison, Inc., was injured at the I/N Tek Continuous Cold Mill Project (I/N Tek) construction site in New Carlisle, Indiana, when he fell into the loading dock ramp located outside the maintenance shop building in which he had been working. During a break, Blake exited the building and upon stepping away from the door, tripped and fell into the adjacent loading dock ramp. The loading dock ramp was constructed on a downward incline so that the bottom of the ramp was a number of feet below level grade. No guardrails were in place at the time of Blake's fall.
Morrison was one of the general contractors on the site which supplied laborers, including Blake, for cleanup. Morrison worked under the direction of the project manager and agent for I/N Tek, United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (U.E. & C.). U.E. & C. was responsible for coordinating the work of the general contractors at the site.
Calumet Construction Corporation also contracted with U.E. & C. Calumet's work at the I/N Tek construction site was to be performed under three separate packages. The first package was the civil portion which included the construction of a loading dock equipped with a guardrail. At the time of Blake's fall in November of 1989, Calumet had completed its first contract package at the I/N Tek construction site and was nearing completion of its second package, which included mechanical work for non-core equipment installation.
On June 18, 1991, Blake filed this action against Calumet for the injuries he sustained as a result of the fall. Thereafter, Calumet filed its motion for summary judgment. On November 22, 1992, after considering the designated evidence, the trial court granted Calumet's motion. Blake now appeals the summary judgment.
The sole issue on review is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Calumet by holding that Calumet owed no duty to Blake under his negligence claim. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this Court stands in the shoes of the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs v. New Energy Co. (1992), Ind.App., 585 N.E.2d 38, 39, trans. denied.
This Court must liberally construe all designated evidentiary matter in favor of the non-moving party and resolve any doubt against the moving party. Brockmeyer v. Fort Wayne Public Transp. (1993), Ind.App., 614 N.E.2d 605, 606, trans. denied. Despite conflicting facts and inferences on some elements of a claim, summary judgment may be proper where there is no conflict regarding facts dispositive of the litigation. Day v. Bicknell Minerals, Inc. (1985), Ind.App., 480 N.E.2d 567, 570. Summary judgment may be sustained on any theory supported by the designated evidentiary materials. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C).
Blake contends there is a general issue of material fact as to whether Calumet owed a duty to Blake to exercise reasonable care. Before a defendant can be held liable for negligence, it must first be shown that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff. Wilson v. Haimbaugh (1985), Ind.App., 482 N.E.2d 486, 487. Absent a duty, there can be no breach of duty and no negligence or liability based upon the breach. Id. The existence of a duty is generally a question of law. Webb v. Jarvis (1991), Ind., 575 N.E.2d 992, 995. As a general rule, a contractor is not liable for negligent damages to third parties after the acceptance of the work by an owner. Citizens Gas & Coke Util. v. Am. Econ. Ins. (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 998, 1000; Snider v. Bob Heinlin Concrete Const. Co. (1987), Ind.App., 506 N.E.2d 77, 81, trans. denied. However, an exception to this general rule exists when the work is left in a condition that is dangerously defective, inherently dangerous or imminently dangerous as such that it creates a risk of imminent personal injury. Snider, 506 N.E.2d at 81; National Steel Erection v. Hinkle (1989), Ind.App., 541 N.E.2d 288, 292.
In the present case, Calumet's work at the I/N Tek site was performed under three separate packages. The construction of the loading dock ramp was part of the first package and had been completed two months prior to Blake's injury. The designated evidence shows that Calumet's work in the maintenance shop/loading dock area had been billed out at 100% and had been accepted and paid for by I/N Tek. By November of 1989, Calumet had completed its work on the first package of the I/N Tek construction project and had relinquished control of the area. Hence, Calumet no longer had any duty to third parties, including Blake, following I/N Tek's acceptance of the work. See Snider, 506 N.E.2d at 81 ().
Blake's assertion that a question of fact exists as to the installation of a guardrail is not material to the resolution of Calumet's summary judgment motion. Even if Calumet had failed to install the guardrail, the condition would not have created a risk of imminent personal injury. Proof of mere negligence is insufficient to impose liability on an independent contractor for injuries to third parties after acceptance by the owner. The negligence must create a situation which is noxious, inherently or imminently dangerous, and likely to cause injury, or it must involve a known or fraudulently concealed defect. Id. at 82.
The loading dock area contained no hidden defects, and the conditions in the area were clearly visible and known to Blake. At his deposition, Blake stated that he had been around the loading dock area on numerous occasions prior to the accident. He further testified that he had seen a railing leaning against the wall of the maintenance shop building from which he exited. Although Blake had not exited the maintenance building from the door next to the loading dock ramp prior to the accident, he was well aware of the condition behind the building. Additionally, Blake stated that on his way out of the building he tripped over something. Thus, the absence of the guardrail did not, in and of itself, make the ramp area inherently or imminently dangerous.
Finally, Blake...
To continue reading
Request your trial