McKean v. Yates Eng'g Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013–CA–01807–COA.,2013–CA–01807–COA. |
| Citation | 210 So.3d 1037 |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
| Parties | David McKEAN, Francesco Medina, Donald Arrington and Wayne Robertson, Appellants/Cross–Appellees v. YATES ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Anderson Regional Medical Center, and Foil Wyatt Architects and Planners, PLLC, Appellees/Cross–Appellants. |
Mark D. Morrison, Ken R. Adcock, William Christopher Ivison, Ridgeland, Eugene Coursey Tullos, Raleigh, attorneys for appellants.
James D. Holland, Jackson, Robert B. Ireland, III, Romney Hastings Entrekin, Richard O. Burson, Peeler Grayson Lacey Jr., Shirley M. Moore, Laurel, Thurman Lavelle Boykin, III, attorneys for Appellees.
EN BANC.
BARNES, J., for the Court:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 1. This case stems from an accident that occurred during the construction of Anderson Regional Medical Center's "Medical Towers III" expansion in Meridian, Mississippi. ARMC entered an agreement with Foil Wyatt Architects and Planners PLLC for the project's design. Architect E. Bowden "Skip" Wyatt prepared the design drawings for Foil Wyatt.
¶ 2. The Medical Towers III construction began in 2008. Although there was no written agreement, Yates Construction was hired as the general contractor. Yates Construction then hired Spectrum II as the subcontractor for concrete services. Plaintiffs, David McKean, Francesco Medina, Donald Arrington, and Wayne Robertson, all worked for Spectrum II.
¶ 3. As of September 2008, the first-story reinforced concrete slab had been poured, and Yates Construction was preparing to pour the concrete walls and columns that would help support the elevated second-story reinforced concrete slab. Yates Engineering1 became involved in the construction project when Dan Perry, Yates Construction's general superintendent, asked engineer Ted Pope to prepare design drawings of the scaffolding and second-story formwork.2
¶ 4. During late September 2008, Pope visited the construction site and met with Mike Clark, a construction supervisor for Yates Construction. Pope noticed some formwork for the first-story concrete columns and walls, but he did not see any scaffolding for the second-story formwork.
¶ 5. During Pope's visit, he and Clark discussed some of the necessary features of the scaffolding, such as the need for wooden 4?x4? posts and stringers, and 2?x4? joists. Pope prepared his preliminary design drawings, and submitted them for comments to Yates Construction on October 3, 2008. Meanwhile, Yates Construction had begun building the scaffolding before receiving Pope's design drawings.
¶ 6. It is undisputed that Pope's plan was fundamentally flawed in one significant way-it contemplated using twenty-four-foot posts. However, wooden 4?x4? posts are not available in that length. Consequently, the posts would have to be "tiered" by stacking them end to end and "spliced" for stability. Despite the fact that Pope's plan was effectively impossible to follow, Yates Construction had no comments about Pope's design. Yates Construction asked Pope to send a final version of his design drawings. Pope complied on October 6, 2014. However, Yates Construction ignored essential features of Pope's scaffolding design.
¶ 7. On November 17, 2008, Spectrum II was pumping wet concrete into the second-story formwork when the scaffolding collapsed. It is undisputed that the collapse was caused by the scaffolding rather than the formwork. The plaintiffs were injured when they fell to the ground.
¶ 8. On September 1, 2010, the plaintiffs sued Yates Construction. The plaintiffs claimed that Yates Construction negligently failed to build the scaffolding "in conformity with the plans and specifications set forth in the governing construction contract or otherwise in a safe and workmanlike manner."
¶ 9. Yates Construction responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint and an answer. In the motion to dismiss, Yates Construction argued that because it had "effectively secured workers' compensation insurance coverage for the Plaintiffs, [it was] protected by the exclusive remedy provision(s) of the Mississippi Workers Compensation Act." Alternatively, it argued that "as the general contractor, [it was] protected by the exclusive remedy provision(s) on account of the fact that the Plaintiffs, employees of a subcontractor, were provided workers' compensation benefits for their alleged injuries." Therefore, Yates Construction concluded that it was "statutorily immune from the suit brought by the Plaintiffs."
¶ 10. In February 2011, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and added Yates Engineering and Foil Wyatt as defendants. According to the amended complaint, Yates Engineering and Foil Wyatt negligently failed "to design and formulate plans and specifications for the scaffolding...." The plaintiffs also claimed that Yates Engineering and Foil Wyatt "were negligent in inspecting the scaffold[ing] and failed and/or refused to correct known deficiencies and defects in the construction [that] made it dangerous to use prior to the subject incident."
¶ 11. In March 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled on a declaratory-judgment action that had been filed by American Resources Insurance Company Inc. The district court held that Yates Construction was the statutory employer of Spectrum II, and it was therefore immune from suit under tort theories. The circuit court subsequently dismissed the plaintiffs' suit against Yates Construction.
¶ 12. In June 2012, the plaintiffs again amended their complaint by adding ARMC as a defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that ARMC negligently failed to require a written contract with Yates Construction. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that ARMC negligently failed to supervise and inspect Yates Construction's work. Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that ARMC failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and warn them of dangers.
¶ 13. On August 3, 2012, the plaintiffs designated engineer Ralph Sinno, Ph.D., as an expert. Dr. Sinno opined that defects in the scaffolding caused the collapse. Dr. Sinno did not attribute the collapse to any aspect of the formwork. Instead, Dr. Sinno stated that the formwork conformed to Foil Wyatt's specifications.
¶ 14. Foil Wyatt's motion for summary judgment had been pending since March 2012. At the plaintiffs request, Dr. Sinno submitted an affidavit opining that Foil Wyatt had a duty to inspect and supervise the construction of the scaffolding. However, Foil Wyatt successfully moved to exclude Dr. Sinno's affidavit on the basis that, as an engineer, he was not qualified to opine as to the duties of an architect. The plaintiffs have not appealed the circuit court's decision to exclude Dr. Sinno's affidavit. On November 27, 2012, the circuit court found that Foil Wyatt did not have a duty to inspect the scaffolding. Consequently, the circuit court granted Foil Wyatt's motion for summary judgment.
¶ 15. On January 14, 2013, Yates Engineering filed a motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff Medina. ARMC joined Yates Engineering's motion. The circuit court granted the motion and held that as an alleged illegal immigrant, Francesco Medina was not entitled to recover even if Yates Engineering and ARMC were found to be negligent.3
¶ 16. In August 2013, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Yates Engineering. The circuit court's decision was based on its conclusion that "[a]t no point in time did Yates Engineering assume the duty [to] inspect or supervise the construction and implementation of its design drawings either by contract or conduct." The circuit court later granted ARMC's motion for summary judgment. According to the circuit court, "no genuine issue of material fact remains with respect to Plaintiffs' claims against [ARMC], and therefore, [ARMC] is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims against it." The circuit court also entered a final judgment on that date.
¶ 17. The plaintiffs appeal. They argue that the circuit court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Yates Engineering, Foil Wyatt, and ARMC. Yates Construction and ARMC have filed cross-appeals that need only be addressed if this Court reverses the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in their favor.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 18. An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novo. Karpinsky v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 109 So.3d 84, 88 (¶ 9) (Miss.2013). "[I]f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 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," then summary judgment "shall be rendered." M.R.C.P. 56(c). The evidence must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made." Karpinsky, 109 So.3d at 88 (¶ 9).
ANALYSIS
¶ 19. According to the plaintiffs, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Pope breached his duty to design a scaffolding system that would support the formwork and the wet concrete. The plaintiffs also claim that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Pope breached his duty to inspect the scaffolding that Yates Construction built before Spectrum II poured the concrete. "To prevail in any type of negligence action, a plaintiff must first prove the existence of a duty." Enter. Leasing Co. S. Cent., Inc. v. Bardin, 8 So.3d 866, 868 (¶ 7) (Miss.2009). "[W]hether a duty exists in a negligence case is a question of law to be determined by the court." Id. An appellate court reviews questions of law de novo. Facilities Inc. v. Rogers–Usry Chevrolet Inc., 908 So.2d 107, 110 (¶ 5) (Miss.2005).
¶ 20. "Mississippi law imposes on design professionals, including architects and engineers, the duty to exercise ordinary professional skill and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Moore
...(Miss. Ct. App. 2016). "Whether a duty exists in a negligence case is a question of law to be determined by the court." McKean v. Yates Eng'g Corp. , 210 So. 3d 1037, 1042 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). ¶9. "Common law traditionally has not imposed a broad duty upon individuals to control the......
-
Waltman v. Engineering Plus, Inc.
...for safety practices; (6) authority to issue change orders; and (7) the right to stop the work. Id. (quoting McKean v. Yates Eng'g Corp. , 210 So.3d 1037, 1044 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Hobson v. Waggoner Eng'g, Inc. , 878 So.2d 68, 72 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ) ). ¶15. With respect to th......