Harris v. RA Martin, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 24998.,24998.
• Citation: 204 W.Va. 397,513 S.E.2d 170
• Parties: Kevin C. HARRIS, Appellant, v. R.A. MARTIN, INC., Appellee.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

513 S.E.2d 170

204 W.Va. 397

Kevin C. HARRIS, Appellant, v.R.A. MARTIN, INC., Appellee.

No. 24998.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted September 22, 1998.

Decided December 15, 1998.

J. Michael Ranson, Esq., Cynthia Morrone Salmons, Esq., Leslie R. Stotler, Esq., Ranson Law Offices, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellant.

Richard E. Rowe, Esq., Lisa Tackett, Esq., Goodwin & Goodwin, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellee.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before this Court upon an appeal of a final order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County entered on July 31, 1997.The appellant, Kevin Harris, a summer employee for the City of Ripley, sustained injuries when a garbage dumpster fell on his leg.He instituted an action against the appellee, R.A. Martin, a construction company, alleging that it was negligent in placing heavy construction materials in the dumpster.Pursuant to the July 31, 1997 order, the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellee.In this appeal, the appellant contends that the circuit court erred by finding that the appellee owed him no legal duty of care.

This Court has before it the petition for appeal, all matters of record, and the briefs and argument of counsel.For the reasons discussed below, the final order of the circuit court is reversed, and this case is remanded.

I.Facts

In August 1994, the appellant was employed as a summer worker for the City of Ripley.While helping with the city garbage collection, the appellant was injured as he attempted to position a garbage dumpster for emptying.The dumpster which contained several large blocks of concrete on top of trash tilted forward and fell on the appellant's leg, pinning him between the dumpster and the pavement.As a result, the appellant suffered a broken ankle.

An investigation into the accident revealed that the blocks of concrete had been placed in the dumpster by employees of the appellee, a contractor hired by the Jackson County Board of Education to repair tennis courts located in the Ripley City Park.¹The dumpster at issue was located about ten yards from the swimming pool in the park and was intended for swimming pool use only.The evidence indicated that the appellee had not been given permission to place concrete or any kind of heavy construction materials in the City's dumpsters.In addition, an ordinance of the City of Ripley specifies that it is "unlawful for any unauthorized person to dispose of refuse, trash, garbage or any other materials in, at or near a commercial dumpster owned or serviced by the City."²

After the accident, the appellant sued the appellee alleging that it was negligent in placing the construction material in the dumpster.Subsequently, the appellee moved for summary judgment on the basis that it owed no duty to the appellant.On July 31, 1997, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee finding that "in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a person who disposes of nonhazardous materials in a dumpster has no duty to dispose of those materials in such a way as to assure that a worker emptying the dumpster avoids injury and that no extraordinary circumstances were present in this case."

II.Standard of Review

On numerous occasions, we have indicated that "[a]circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo."Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755(1994).See alsoSyllabus Point 4, Dieter Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. Parkland Dev., Inc., 199 W.Va. 48, 483 S.E.2d 48(1996);Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. Stacy, 198 W.Va. 498, 482 S.E.2d 115(1996).Pursuant to Rule 56 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is required when the record shows that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."In Syllabus Point 3 of Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770(1963), this Court held: "A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law."See alsoSyllabus Point 3, Evans v. Mutual Mining, 199 W.Va. 526, 485 S.E.2d 695(1997);Syllabus Point 1, McClung Invs., Inc. v. Green Valley Community Pub. Serv. Dist., 199 W.Va. 490, 485 S.E.2d 434(1997).We have also observed that:

Summary judgment is appropriate if, from the totality of the evidence presented, the record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove.

Syllabus Point 2, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329(1995).See alsoSyllabus Point 2, Cottrill v. Ranson, 200 W.Va. 691, 490 S.E.2d 778(1997);Syllabus Point 2, McGraw v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 200 W.Va. 114, 488 S.E.2d 389(1997).

In Williams,we clarified the function of the circuit court at the summary judgment stage.We explained that the circuit court is not "`to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.'"194 W.Va. at 59, 459 S.E.2d at 336(quotingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212(1986)).Consequently, any permissible inference from the underlying facts must be drawn in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.Painter,192 W.Va. at 192, 451 S.E.2d at 758."Summary judgment should be denied `even where there is no dispute as to the evidentiary facts in the case but only as to the conclusions to be drawn therefrom.'"Williams,194 W.Va. at 59, 459 S.E.2d at 336(quotingPierce v. Ford Motor Co.,190 F.2d 910, 915(4th Cir.), cert. denied,342 U.S. 887, 72 S.Ct. 178, 96 L.Ed. 666(1951)).

III.Existence of Duty

The establishment of a prima facie case of negligence requires a showing that a defendant is guilty of some act or omission in violation of a duty owed to the plaintiff.SeeSyllabus Point 1, Parsley v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 167 W.Va. 866, 280 S.E.2d 703(1981).In this case, the appellant contends that the circuit court erred by finding that the appellee owed him no duty of care.We agree.

In Robertson v. LeMaster,171 W.Va. 607, 301 S.E.2d 563(1983), we discussed the modern trend of expanding the concept of duty in tort cases.In Syllabus Point 1 of Robertson,we stated that "[t]he liability to make reparation for an injury, by negligence, is founded upon an original moral duty, enjoined upon every person, so to conduct himself, or exercise his own rights, as not to injur [sic] another."In this regard, we explained that "[i]t is well-established that one who engages in affirmative conduct, and thereafter realizes or should realize that such conduct has created an unreasonable risk of harm to another, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the threatened harm."Syllabus Point 2, Robertson.We further explained that "`[Duty]' is a question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff; and in negligence cases, the duty is always the same, to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in light of the apparent risk."171 W.Va. at 611, 301 S.E.2d at 567, quotingW. Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 53 (4th ed. 1971).While the existence of a duty is defined in terms of foreseeability, it also involves policy considerations including "the likelihood of injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it, and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant."Id.

As we stated in Syllabus Point 3 of Sewell v. Gregory, 179 W.Va. 585, 371 S.E.2d 82(1988):

The ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised.The test is, would the ordinary man in the defendant's position, knowing what he knew or should have known, anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result?

Pursuant to the Sewell standard, the inquiry must focus upon the extent to which the appellant could have reasonably foreseen that bodily injury could occur due to his actions.As Justice Cardozo succinctly noted, "[t]he risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed."Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co.,248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 100(1928).In addressing such issues of foreseeability in Johnson v. Mays,191 W.Va. 628, 447 S.E.2d 563(1994), we explained that questions of the foreseeability that harm may result from placing gasoline in an unlabeled container at the request of ten-year old boys were questions of fact for the jury.Id. at 634, 447 S.E.2d at 569.

The appellee argues that it owed no duty to the appellant in connection with the toppling dumpster based on Robinson v. Suitery, Ltd.,172 Ill.App.3d 359, 122 Ill.Dec. 307, 526 N.E.2d 566(1988).In Robinson,the plaintiff cut her hand on a piece of glass as she attempted to dispose of trash in a commercial dumpster shared by tenants of a mini-mall.The plaintiff filed suit against another business located at the mall for negligent disposal of fluorescent light tubes.The court held that the user of a commercial dumpster did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because the glass tubes were disposed where they should have been, in the garbage dumpster.

The casesub judice differs from Robertson in two factual respects.First, there are genuine issues of fact with regard to whether the appellee had permission to use the dumpster in question.There are in fact allegations that the appellee may have violated an ordinance by using the dumpster.Secondly, the Robinson court sought to avoid imposing a duty on those permissibly using a dumpster to take extraordinary measures.

Furthermore, we...