Jentz v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13–1505,13–1543,13–1544.,13–1542,s. 13–1505 |
| Citation | 767 F.3d 688 |
| Parties | John W. JENTZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., and West Side Salvage, Inc., Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Andrew H. Schapiro, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Marc A. Taxman, Anesi, Ozmon, Rodin, Novak & Kohen LTD., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Christopher Landau, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, Paul V. Esposito, Clausen Miller, Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellant.
Bruce Robert Pfaff, Pfaff & Gill, LTD., Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae.
Before EASTERBROOK, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
A grain bin in Chester, Illinois, exploded on April 27, 2010, injuring three workers. After a 17–day trial, a jury awarded almost $180 million in compensatory and punitive damages against ConAgra Foods and West Side Salvage. ConAgra, which owned the facility, part of a flour mill, contends that liability rests on West Side, which it had hired to address problems in bin C15. For its part, West Side does not contest liability to the workers but contends that it does not have to reimburse ConAgra for the cost of repairing the facility. Both ConAgra and West Side maintain that the damages are excessive. The injured workers contend that both ConAgra and West Side must pay the full verdict.
Seventeen days of trial mean that the record is hefty, but a recap is enough to set up the parties' contentions. Explosions are a constant risk in grain storage, which produces not only a lot of combustible dust and carbon monoxide (which can oxidize explosively to carbon dioxide) but also, through the decay of a bin's contents, heat that can set off a blast. In March 2010 ConAgra discovered a burning smell in bin C15, containing wheat pellets. ConAgra got in touch with West Side, which touts expertise in handling “hot bins.” ConAgra's negotiations with West Side and its competitors (ConAgra wanted a lower price) delayed the start of work; West Side's own busy schedule added to the delay. Work finally began on April 20, 2010, and West Side hired A & J Bin Cleaning to do some of the tasks. Two of the injured workers, John Jentz and Robert Schmidt, were employees of A & J; the third, Justin Becker, was employed by West Side itself.
ConAgra wanted to salvage as much of the grain as possible, but as pellets were removed from the top more oxygen reached wheat composting at the bin's bottom. West Side decided to remove some grain via side tunnels. On April 27 West Side detected smoke coming from the bin. Its crew sprayed water on the pellets and used an air lance to try to discover the smoke's source; the effort failed. Mel Flitsch, West Side's foreman, told ConAgra to call the fire department. Waiting for firefighters to arrive, Flitsch sent Jentz and Becker into a tunnel, instructing them to remove tools that might impair firefighters' access. While they were there, the explosion occurred. They were severely injured but survived. Schmidt, who was in an elevator nearby, also was injured, but less seriously. In a series of opinions, the district judge rejected all proposals for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. See 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17231 (S.D.Ill. Feb. 8, 2013) (); 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17232 (S.D.Ill. Feb. 8, 2013) (); 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17237 (S.D.Ill. Feb. 8, 2013) (); 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 109344 (S.D.Ill. Aug. 6, 2012) (); 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93137 (S.D.Ill. July 6, 2012) ().
Normally employees of an independent contractor (which describes all of the plaintiffs except Amber Becker, whose claim depends on her role as Justin Becker's spouse) cannot obtain damages from the owner of the premises at which the contractor was working. See Restatement (Third) of Torts §§ 55–57. Plaintiffs contend that ConAgra nevertheless is liable for failing to provide West Side with a safe place to work. ConAgra responds that of course bin C15 was unsafe—that's why West Side had been hired! ConAgra relies on the principle that someone who engages an independent contractor to redress an unsafe condition is not liable when the feared event occurs. Illinois (whose law governs in this suit under the diversity jurisdiction) has adopted this principle, observing in Community College District 508 v. Coopers & Lybrand, 208 Ill.2d 259, 271, 281 Ill.Dec. 56, 803 N.E.2d 460 (2003), that “in a case involving negligent rendition of a service [by an independent contractor], ... a factfinder does not consider any plaintiff's conduct that created the condition the service was employed to remedy.” (Quotation from Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 7 comment m.) And that, ConAgra contends, is that: It hired West Side to deal with a hot bin, and all liability therefore is on its account. West Side could have negotiated for an indemnity or insurance for its benefit (and that of its workers and subcontractors) but did not do so; West Side and plaintiffs rely only on the law of torts.
Although plaintiffs and West Side weakly contend that it did not know that C15 was a hot bin, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that it did—indeed, it knew that this is why it had been hired—and no reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise. (The jury was not asked to return a special verdict on that question, which it did not need to resolve under the instructions it received.) West Side may have failed to alert A & J adequately, but that's not a reason to impose liability on ConAgra. Plaintiffs say that ConAgra should have hired West Side sooner (without shopping for lower bids) and that this might have reduced the risk; they also observe that ConAgra did not volunteer all temperature readings it had taken in bin C15 before the mid-April engagement. But no one contends that ConAgra failed to answer accurately all questions West Side posed. Having hired a self-proclaimed expert in hot bins, ConAgra was entitled to assume that West Side would ask for whatever information it needed. (Flitsch had dealt with more than 50 hot bins during his career at West Side; he knew the territory.) People who hire lawyers rely on them to ask for information material to the situation, and no court would hold a client liable to his lawyer for failing to reveal spontaneously something that the lawyer never asked about; similarly people who hire specialists in controlling the risks of grain storage are entitled to rely on them to know what matters and ask for the material information.
Plaintiffs and West Side equate the doctrine adopted in Coopers & Lybrand to the “firefighters' rule” and contend that it must be limited to firefighters. That's wrong for two reasons. First, the firefighters' rule is a distinct doctrine dealing with services not charged for. Under it firefighters cannot recover from homeowners for creating the conditions that led to the fire (which may claim firefighters' lives); conversely, homeowners cannot recover from firefighters who fail to bring the blaze under control quickly or without damaging the home. West Side was not a volunteer, nor were its services paid for by taxpayers; it was a standard independent contractor in a commercial relation with ConAgra, and normal rules of contract and tort law apply.
Second, Coopers & Lybrand itself shows that its rule is not limited to firefighters; the Supreme Court of Illinois dealt in that suit with a client's malpractice claim against its accountants. The accountants argued that the client was comparatively negligent because it created (financial) conditions that made it easier for accountants to err. The conclusion that an accountant's malpractice is not mitigated by the fact that the client created risky financial or bookkeeping conditions applies equally to a claim by a grain-removal specialist (and its employees) against the owner of the grain-storage facility. Coopers & Lybrand is far from the only Illinois case on point. For example, Keating v. 68th & Paxton L.L.C., 401 Ill.App.3d 456, 470–72, 344 Ill.Dec. 293, 936 N.E.2d 1050 (2010), holds that a property owner could not be liable to a contractor for injuries the contractor and its employees suffered while working on a dangerous porch that the contractor had been hired to repair. Other states follow the same approach.
The district court should have granted ConAgra's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 for judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. Worthington Cylinder Corp., Case No. 16 C 07548
...law, simple negligence does not support an award of punitive damages but willful and wanton conduct does. Jentz v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 767 F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir. 2014). To be willful and wanton, conduct must be either intentional or a gross deviation from the standard of care. Id. Whether......