Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Decision Date | 01 May 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85-166,85-166 |
Citation | 718 P.2d 890 |
Parties | Floyd Allen JONES and Norene Jones, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Appellee (Defendant), James Bennion; William Jones; Jeff Trampis and Does 1 through 5 (Defendants). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Richard H. Honaker (argued) Rock Springs, and Jack A. Rose, Anaheim, California, for appellants, Robert W. Tiedeken of Terry W. Mackey, P.C., Cheyenne, filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association.
Mark W. Gifford of Brown, Drew, Apostolos, Massey & Sullivan, Casper, for appellee.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and BROWN, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted Chevron U.S.A., Inc. in a suit brought by appellant Floyd Jones for electrocution injuries he suffered while painting a transformer platform owned by Chevron. There are several interrelated issues which demand our attention. At the outset, we must decide whether an owner of a work site has a duty to protect an employee of an independent contractor from hazards of the work site which are incidental to the very work the contractor is hired to perform. If we find that the owner owes such a duty, we must determine whether it runs to an employee who is harmed by obvious man-made hazards. Finally, we
must decide whether an owner can be vicariously liable to his contractor's employee for the contractor's negligent acts. This last issue involves the application of the special-risk doctrine of §§ 416 and 427 of the Restatement, Second, Torts. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
The parties agreed that Automation would "perform the work as an independent contractor and not as an employee of [Chevron]." The contract also provided with respect to safety:
"Contractor agrees, while on [Chevron's] premises or vessels, to observe such safety rules as [Chevron] shall prescribe as necessary for the protection of personnel and property * * *."
In September 1980, pursuant to the 1978 general service contract, Chevron hired Automation to construct power lines running to some of Chevron's oil and gas wells near Evanston. Chevron provided the specifications for all the power line components and employed a surveyor who staked the locations for the power poles. Automation crews erected the power poles, installed insulators and other hardware, and strung the lines. The lines were then energized.
Appellant Floyd Jones had joined Automation as an apprentice electrician in August of 1980 and worked at the Chevron project since its inception in early September. He was a member of foreman William Jones' work crew. On October 10, 1980, appellant was instructed by his foreman to paint the metal portions of an H frame which the crew had completed in early October and which had been energized on October 3rd. The H frame consisted of two wooden power poles which were set about twenty feet apart and connected by a horizontal platform. The platform was a wooden deck supported by metal braces affixed about halfway up the poles. Two transformers rested on the platform and were wired to the main power lines which ran horizontally across the tops of the poles.
After appellant painted the metal under the platform, he climbed onto the platform to complete the job. Electricity arced from the transformers to appellant, coursed through his body and knocked him from the platform. He sustained serious injuries.
Appellant filed a complaint in the district court naming as defendants Automation & Electronics, Inc., Chevron U.S.A., Inc., his supervisors, several unnamed fellow employees, and several unnamed employees of Chevron. Automation was dismissed from the suit because of the bar of the Worker's Compensation Act. Chevron moved for summary judgment.
The affidavits and depositions in support of and in opposition to summary judgment disclose several disputes of fact. First, while it is clear that appellant's foreman and fellow crew members were present when appellant was ordered to paint the H frame, there is a dispute as to whether a Chevron engineer was on the scene. Appellant stated in his affidavit that he received instructions to paint the H frame right after he interrupted a conversation between his foreman and a Chevron engineer named either Bob or R.G. But, Chevron's lead project engineer, R.L. "Bob" Kiyoi, stated in his affidavit:
"To the best of my recollection, I was not at the job site at the time of Floyd Jones' injury."
Appellant's foreman testified in his deposition that he did not remember any Chevron personnel being present.
There is also some dispute over what was said. In his deposition, appellant's foreman testified that he told the crew "to go up the poles and paint as far as they could reach." He also recalled telling them to paint the part they could not reach "out of the bucket truck." But in his affidavit There is little dispute in the summary judgment materials about the procedure for de-energizing the power lines. Automation could de-energize lines only after obtaining permission from Chevron. Appellant's supervisor did not request a shutdown before he ordered the painting to proceed because it would have taken about an hour to get permission from Chevron's well operators.
appellant indicated that the instructions were less specific and led him to believe that he could safely paint the entire platform without the bucket truck. He claims that he asked his foreman, within the hearing of the Chevron engineer, whether the H frame was "ready for [them] to go up." According to appellant, his foreman told him it was ready, and another foreman told him "everything is clear." He assumed from his conversations with his foreman and the silence of the Chevron engineer that the power was off
Based on the affidavits, depositions and other summary judgment materials before it, the district court found that Chevron owed appellant no direct duty of reasonable care. The court held:
a. that, as a matter of law, owners "are not obligated to protect employees of an independent contractor * * * from hazards which are incidental to or a part of the very work the independent contractor was hired to perform";
b. that an owner's duty to discover and warn his invitees of dangers on the premises does not extend to employees of an independent contractor who suffer physical harm "caused by a special danger encountered * * * while engaged in the performance of inherently dangerous work";
c. that appellant's employer was an independent contractor;
d. that, as a matter of fact, the dangers of the transformer tower were obvious to appellant. Therefore, the obvious-danger rule barred his recovery as a matter of law; and
e. that Chevron could not be vicariously liable for Automation's negligence because Automation was Chevron's independent contractor not its employee; that the special-risk doctrine of § 416 of the Restatement, Second, Torts, which prevents an owner from delegating its duty of care to an independent contractor under some circumstances, did not apply because, according to the court, the doctrine had not "been adopted or approved by the Wyoming Supreme Court [and] is not the law of Wyoming * * *."
(Citations omitted.) Noonan v. Texaco, Inc., Wyo., 713 P.2d 160, 162 (1986).
Appellant argues that he was an invitee and that Chevron, therefore, owed a duty to protect him from the dangerous condition of its premises and the dangerous acts and omissions of its employees. He alleges that Chevron's premises were unsafe because Chevron made it difficult for Automation to shut the power off while work went forward on the power lines and that Chevron was negligent when its engineer at the scene of the accident neither warned appellant that the power was on nor ordered that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mavrikidis v. Petullo
...workers' compensation system and subvert the parties' reasonable expectations. Id. at 117, 543 A.2d 973; see also Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890, 899 (Wyo.1986) ("The owner should not have to pay for injuries caused by the contractor when the worker[s'] compensation system alre......
-
Privette v. Superior Court
...Cas. Co. (1988) 143 Wis.2d 379, 421 N.W.2d 835; Peone v. Regulas Stud Mills (1987) 113 Idaho 374, 744 P.2d 102, 106; Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (Wyo.1986) 718 P.2d 890; Vertentes v. Barletta Co., Inc. (1984) 392 Mass. 165, 466 N.E.2d 500; Johns v. New York Blower Co. (Ind.Ct.App.1982) 44......
-
Allmaras v. Mudge
...45, 54 A. 285 (1902), to assure safety to the driving public during street repair by providing proper warning signs. Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890 (Wyo.1986); Casper Nat. Bank v. Jones, 79 Wyo. 38, 329 P.2d 1077 (1958); Stockgrowers' Bank of Wheatland v. Gray, 24 Wyo. 18, 154 ......
-
Monk v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority, 94-7372
...Wis.2d 379, 421 N.W.2d 835, 841, 844 (1988); Stockwell v. Parker Drilling Co., 733 P.2d 1029, 1032 (Wyo.1987) (citing Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890 (Wyo.1986)); cf. Rowley v. Mayor of Baltimore, 305 Md. 456, 505 A.2d 494, 503 (1986); Vertentes v. Barletta Co., 392 Mass. 165, 4......
-
Falls on Construction Sites
...Wis. 2d 379, 421 N.W.2d 835 (Wis. 1988); Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills , 113 Idaho 374, 744 P.2d 102 (Idaho 1987); Jones v. Chevron U.S.A. , 718 P.2d 890 (Wyo. 1986); Vertentes v. Barletta Co. , 392 Mass. 165, 466 N.E.2d 500 (1984); Johns v. New York Blower Co. , 442 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App.......
-
Employee or Independent Contractor?
...584 P.2d 1034, 1041 (Wyo. 1978). 8 Natural Gas Processing Co. v. Hull, 886 P.2d 1181 (Wyo. 1994). 9 Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890 (Wyo. 1986); Holdaway v. Gustanson, 632 F. Supp. 393 (D. Wyo. 1986). 10 Wyo. Stat. 27-3-101, et. seq. 11 Wyo. Stat. 27-14-101, et. seq. 12 Kenney, ......