Michel v. Valdastri, Ltd.

• Citation: 575 P.2d 1299,59 Haw. 53
• Decision Date: 08 March 1978
• Docket Number: No. 5835,5835
• Parties: , 1978 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 22,706 Ben W. MICHEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALDASTRI, LTD., a Hawaii Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Hawai'i

Page 1299

575 P.2d 1299

59 Haw. 53, 1978 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 22,706

Ben W. MICHEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALDASTRI, LTD., a Hawaii Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 5835.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

March 8, 1978.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Proof of the failure of the defendant to conform his conduct to standards established by law for the protection of the class to which the injured party belongs, when shown to have a legitimate connection to the issue, is admissible as evidence of the defendant's negligence.

2. Where the statute establishes standard of care for the protection and safety of others and there is a reasonable and logical connection between the defendant's failure to observe that duty and the omission claimed to have caused the injury, proof of the defendant's neglect of that duty is evidence of negligence sufficient to require the submission of the question of negligence to the jury.

3. An employer owes his employees a reasonably safe place to work and to furnish them with reasonably safe tools, appliances, and machinery with which to perform their duties.

4. The Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law (HRS § 396), which reaffirms the established common law duty of an employer to provide his employees a reasonably safe place to work and to furnish them with reasonably safe tools, appliances, and machinery with which to perform their duties, has its emphasis on worker safety in any place of employment and not upon the employer-employee relationship.

5. An employee of an independent contractor required or permitted to perform work in any place of employment, as defined by the statute, is an employee within the meaning of the law.

6. The occupational safety and health law imposes on employers no duty to protect the employee of the independent contractor from the defect or hazard which he has been hired to abate or repair.

7. An independent contractor or his servants under contract for repairs to be performed on the premises who are injured by a defective condition for which they were not specifically engaged to abate or repair are still owed the statutory duty a safe place to work.

Edward J. Bybee, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.

James F. Ventura, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and KOBAYASHI, OGATA, MENOR and KIDWELL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for injuries sustained by plaintiff-appellant Michel on defendant-appellee Valdastri's premises. The plaintiff was an employee of KEMS, Inc., an independent electrical contracting firm, and the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing large, heavy concrete items used in the construction industry.

Valdastri's operations were conducted in a large, rectangular building in which three overhead travelling cranes were installed. These were utilized in lifting and transporting the concrete items to different locations within the building in the course of the manufacturing process. The cranes were situated some thirty feet above the ground level of the building and were powered entirely by electricity. Each crane could be operated individually by push-button controls located at ground level. The cranes were similar in their basic component operational design in that each of them had a lifting mechanism, or hoist, mounted upon a bridge. The bridge, or gantry beam, of each crane spanned the width of the building. On the ends of each of the gantry beams were wheels resembling those used on railroad cars. These wheels rested upon a pair of parallel I-Beam tracks, or "side rails," which were located on either side of the building and which extended along the entire length of the building. This structural arrangement made it possible to roll the cranes from one end of the building to the other. Only two of the three cranes were equipped with some kind of braking system to control this rolling or "gantry" motion.

On the day of the accident, Michel was dispatched by KEMS to repair the center crane's trolley wire by request of Valdastri. With the help of some of Valdastri's workmen, Michel placed an extension ladder against the crane's gantry beam and began his ascent. When he reached the top, the gantry beam moved away from the ladder and both the ladder and Michel fell to the concrete floor. Michel was severely injured as a result of the fall. Testimony was adduced at trial to the effect that the center crane's gantry brakes were not functioning properly.

On the defendant's motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court ordered the entry of judgment in favor of Valdastri and against the plaintiff Michel. The latter appeals from the judgment of the circuit court. ¹

We reverse. The trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to adduce evidence of claimed violations of pertinent provisions of the State's General Safety Code which was adopted and promulgated pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Law (OSHL), HRS Chapter 396.

Proof of the failure of the defendant to conform his conduct to standards established by law for the protection of the class to which the injured party belongs, when shown to have a legitimate connection to the issue, is admissible as evidence of negligence. Young v. Hon. C. & D. Co., 34 Haw. 426, 435 (1938); Sherry v. Asing, 56 Haw. 135, 149, 531 P.2d 648, 658 (1974). In this case, the plaintiff Michel offered to prove that Valdastri had failed to conform to the provisions of the Code dealing with cranes, derricks and hoists. This offer was improperly denied by the trial court. Proof of the defendant's violations of OSHL and the Code would have constituted evidence of negligence and would have required the submission of the issue of negligence to the jury. Id. In Young this court said:

"(W)here, as here, a municipal ordinance prescribes a duty for the protection and safety of others and there is a reasonable and logical connection between the failure to observe the requirements of the ordinance and the omission claimed to have caused the injury, the neglect of duty imposed by the ordinance is evidence of negligence sufficient to require the question of negligence to be submitted to the jury." 34 Haw. at...