Goebel v. Dean & Associates
| Decision Date | 10 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. C 97-4082-MWB.,C 97-4082-MWB. |
| Citation | 91 F.Supp.2d 1268 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
| Parties | Robert T. GOEBEL, Plaintiff, v. DEAN & ASSOCIATES, James D. Norton d/b/a Norton Print Systems, and Goss Graphics Systems, Inc., Defendants. |
Timm W. Reid, Richard H. Doyle, Galligan, Tully, Doyle, & Reid, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for plaintiff Robert T. Goebel.
Daniel L. Hartnett, Crary, Huff, Inkster, Sheehan, Ringgenberg, Hartnett, Storm & Jensen, P.C., Sioux City, IA, for defendant Dean & Associates.
Richard G. Book, Huber, Book, Corese, Happe & Brown, P.L.C., Des Moines, IA, for defendant James D. Norton.
Michael R. Hellige, Kathleen Roe, Hellige, Lundberg, Meis, Erickson & Frey, Sioux City, IA, for defendant Goss Graphics Systems.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1271
A. Procedural Background .......................................... 1271
B. Factual Background ............................................. 1271
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ..................................................... 1272
A. Standards For Summary Judgment ................................. 1272
B. Dean's Potential Liability To Goebel ........................... 1273
1. The parties' contentions ................................... 1274
2. The "general rule" and exceptions to it .................... 1274
3. Applicability of exceptions here ........................... 1275
a. "Own negligence" ....................................... 1275
i. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 414 .............. 1275
ii. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 412 .............. 1276
iii. Source of the preconditional duty ................ 1277
iv. The duty in this case ............................ 1278
v. Scope of Dean's "own negligence." ................ 1280
vi. Summary .......................................... 1281
b. Non-delegable duty ..................................... 1281
i. The Giarratona decision .......................... 1281
ii. Application of the rule in Giarratona ............ 1282
C. Dean's Liability to Goss ....................................... 1283
1. Contribution based on Dean's negligence .................... 1283
2. Authority for a contribution claim ......................... 1284
a. Contractual right ...................................... 1284
b. Common-law and statutory authority ..................... 1284
III. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 1287
Who can be held liable for injuries to a printing press operator who claims that he was injured in a fall from a printing press caused by the collapse of an access step? The injured press operator has brought this lawsuit asserting the liability of the company that sold the printing press to his employer and agreed to provide "turnkey" installation, the subcontractor hired by the seller of the press to install the press, and the subcontractor's subcontractor, who did the actual mechanical installation of the press. On a motion for summary judgment, the subcontractor contends that, whoever else may be liable to the injured press operator, it isn't. The subcontractor cites the "general rule" of RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 409 that an employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his servants, claiming that, under this rule, it cannot be liable for any negligence of its subcontractor. The subcontractor has also moved for summary judgment on the seller's cross-claim for indemnity and contribution. The injured press operator, the seller of the press, and the subcontractor's subcontractor have all resisted the subcontractor's motion, arguing that exceptions to the general rule establish a basis for the subcontractor's liability in this case. The seller also contests the subcontractor's assertion that there is no basis for the seller's indemnity and contribution claim.
Plaintiff Robert T. Goebel filed this lawsuit on June 23, 1997, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting claims under Iowa law against defendants Goss Graphics Systems, Inc., described above as the "seller," Dean & Associates, described above as the "subcontractor," and James D. Norton d/b/a Norton Print Systems, described above as the "subcontractor's subcontractor." In this lawsuit, Mr. Goebel seeks to recover for personal injuries he suffered on June 14, 1996, in a fall from a printing press during his employment at Heartland Press, Inc., in Spencer, Iowa. Mr. Goebel alleges that his fall was caused by the collapse of a metal access step attached to the printing press. He seeks to hold the defendants—as the seller and/or installers of the press—liable for the collapse of the step and his resulting injuries on various theories.
Mr. Goebel's operative pleading is his Third Amended Complaint, filed April 27, 1998. That pleading is in three divisions, each division asserting claims against one of the defendants. Division I alleges that Dean, the "subcontractor," was negligent in the following respects: failing properly to secure the metal access step to the printing press; failing to exercise reasonable care in the assembly and installation of the metal access step connected to the printing press; failing to conduct a proper inspection of work performed; failing to choose and incorporate proper materials into the assembly and installation of the printing press and its attached metal access step; and other unspecified acts. Mr. Goebel alleges that Dean's negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries. Division II asserts a comparable negligence claim against Norton, while Division III asserts claims of strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty against Goss.
This matter comes before the court pursuant to defendant Dean's August 9, 1999, motion for summary judgment on Mr. Goebel's negligence claim against Dean and Goss's cross-claim against Dean. Defendant Norton resisted the motion on August 26, 1999, but did not file a brief in support of its resistance at that time. The disposition of the motion was then delayed by the automatic stay in bankruptcy occasioned by defendant Goss's bankruptcy petition. That stay has since been lifted upon notice by Goss of completion of its reorganization. Defendant Goss resisted Dean's motion on December 28, 1999. Plaintiff Goebel joined in Goss's resistance on January 6, 2000. Defendant Norton filed a brief in support of its prior resistance to Dean's motion for summary judgment on January 7, 2000. Dean then filed a reply brief in further support of its motion for summary judgment on February 24, 2000.
The court heard oral arguments on Dean's motion for summary judgment on February 28, 2000. Plaintiff Robert T. Goebel was represented by Timm W. Reid and Richard H. Doyle of Galligan, Tully, Doyle, & Reid, P.C., in Des Moines, Iowa. Defendant Dean & Associates was represented by Daniel L. Hartnett of Crary, Huff, Inkster, Sheehan, Ringgenberg, Hartnett, Storm & Jensen, P.C., in Sioux City, Iowa. Defendant James D. Norton was represented by Richard G. Book of Huber, Book, Corese, Happe & Brown, P.L.C., in Des Moines, Iowa. Defendant Goss Graphics Systems was represented by Michael R. Hellige and Kathleen Roe of Hellige, Lundberg, Meis, Erickson & Frey of Sioux City, Iowa.
The court will discuss here only the nucleus of undisputed facts pertinent to the present motion for summary judgment. In its legal analysis, the court will address, where necessary, the parties' assertions of genuine issues of material fact that may preclude summary judgment in Dean's favor on Mr. Goebel's negligence claim and Goss's cross-claim for indemnity and contribution.
In his Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Goebel alleges that, on or about June 14, 1996, while he was employed as a printer at Heartland Press, Inc., in Spencer, Iowa, a metal access step attached to the printing press he was operating collapsed beneath him, causing him to fall, resulting in severe and permanent injuries to his knee, leg, hip, and other parts of his body, as well as loss of wages, use of his full body, and future earning capacity, and causing permanent scarring and disfigurement. The nature, extent, and indeed the cause of Mr. Goebel's injuries are not at issue on the present motion for summary judgment: For the purposes of summary judgment only, the parties assume that Mr. Goebel will be able to prove that, when the press was turned over to Heartland Press, the bolts that should have secured the access step were improperly secured or missing, not that the bolts were loosened or removed by some other person at some time thereafter. What is at issue is the question of the legal basis for claims against defendant Dean. Therefore, the court turns to the relationship among Heartland Press, Goss, Dean, and Norton, as the owner of the printing press from which Mr. Goebel fell and the parties allegedly responsible for negligently installing the printing press.
The printing press from which Mr. Goebel fell was sold to Heartland Press by Goss Graphics late in 1995 for $3,830,000. The press is approximately 100 feet long and consists of eight separate units, each weighing several tons. For an additional $615,000, Goss also agreed to install the press and make it operational, a so-called "turnkey" installation. The parties agree that the installation of the press would have included installation of the access steps and step covers.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Sma Elevator Constr. Inc., C 09–4002–MWB.
...§ 404 claim). Such a claim may be cognizable for “assembly,” rather than just “rebuilding” or “repairing.” See Goebel v. Dean & Assocs., 91 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1278 (N.D.Iowa 2000) (concluding that § 404 is applicable to an independent contractor who “assembles,” rather than strictly-speaking “......
-
Cochran v. Gehrke Const., C 01-0161-MWB.
...the exceptions to that rule stated in §§ 410-429 of the RESTATEMENT, as set forth in this court's decision in Goebel v. Dean & Assocs., 91 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1274-83 (N.D.Iowa 2000), and the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Kragel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 1995), are ......
-
Depape v. Trinity Health Systems, Inc., C01-3043-MWB.
...duty element of the negligence claim can be established only by resort to a contractual obligation. See, e.g., Goebel v. Dean & Assocs., 91 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1279-80 (N.D.Iowa 2000) (recognizing that not every breach of contract gives rise to a tort claim under Iowa law, but allowing negligen......
-
Eischeid v. Dover Construction, Inc., No. C 00-4100-MWB (N.D. Iowa 8/25/2003), C 00-4100-MWB.
...Dev. Corp., 354 N.W.2d 251 (Iowa Ct.App. 1984); Kragel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 1995); Goebel v. Dean & Assocs., 91 F. Supp.2d 1268 (N.D.Iowa 2000); and RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 414). Although the "duty" is nondelegable, performance of that duty may be delegated......