Parent v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 July 1990
• Citation: 408 Mass. 108,556 N.E.2d 1009
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Norman P. PARENT et al. 1 v. STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION.

Page 1009

556 N.E.2d 1009

408 Mass. 108

Norman P. PARENT et al. ¹ v. STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Bristol.

Argued May 7, 1990.

Decided July 18, 1990.

Charles A. Murray, III, Raynham, for plaintiffs.

Gordon L. Doerfer (Bruce D. Berns, Boston, with him) for defendant.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

GREANEY, Justice.

This negligence case is before us after entry of summary judgment in the Superior Court for the defendant, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. (Stone & Webster), pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We must determine whether Stone & Webster, the moving party, has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. Crandall Dry Dock Eng'rs, Inc., 396 Mass. 818, 822, 489 N.E.2d 172 (1986).

The background of the case is as follows. The plaintiff Norman Parent (Parent) is an electrician employed by Montaup Electric Company (Montaup), which operates an electrical generating plant in Somerset. On March 10, 1987, Parent was working in the breaker house at the Somerset plant, using an instrument to test for voltage drops in an electrical distribution panel. ² Unbeknownst to Parent, the panel he was testing carried a particularly high amount of electricity--2,300 volts. During the testing, an electrical "arc-over" occurred and Parent was severely burned.

Stone & Webster, a firm which provides engineering, architectural, and construction management services to utility companies, installed the distribution panel at the Montaup plant in 1958. It did no further work at the plant until 1982, when it entered into a contract with Montaup to provide certain services in conjunction with the coal conversion of the Somerset plant. Under that contract, portions of which were before the motion judge, Stone & Webster is designated the project manager for the conversion project. In addition to other tasks, Stone & Webster was responsible for conducting an evaluation of the plant's station service electrical system, installing conduit pipes in the distribution panel in question, and providing "participation and assistance as may be required" in a range of specified areas, including "[s]afety."

The plaintiffs argue that Stone & Webster committed negligence when it failed to affix a warning label to the high voltage distribution panel upon installing the panel in 1958, and again upon performing its duties pursuant to the 1982 contract. Parent claims that, had the panel been labeled "Danger High-Voltage" in a clear and conspicuous manner, he would not have conducted the test in the manner in which he did, or with the equipment he used, and, accordingly, would not have been injured. Parent thus sues to recover damages for his physical and mental injuries, while his wife, the plaintiff Heidi Parent, seeks recovery for the loss of her husband's consortium.

Stone & Webster claims it is entitled to summary judgment for two reasons. First, Stone & Webster argues that those portions of the negligence claim which are predicated on Stone & Webster's actions in 1958 are barred by the repose provisions of G.L. c. 260, § 2B (1988 ed.). That statute provides, in relevant part, that tort claims "for damages arising out of any deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property" may not be brought later than six years from the date when the improvement is first put to use. ³ Second, Stone & Webster maintains that, subsequent to 1958, it did no work for Montaup which would give rise to a duty of care toward Parent. ⁴ We consider each argument in turn.

1. The statute of repose. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Stone & Webster acted negligently in 1958, when it installed the distribution panel at the Montaup plant without affixing a warning label indicating the high voltage carried therein. Since this alleged act of negligence occurred more than six years prior to the filing of the Parents' complaint, it would not be actionable if the repose statute applies to the installation work performed by Stone & Webster in 1958.

We have held that G.L. c. 260, § 2B, applies to "parties who render particularized services for the design and construction of particular improvements to particular pieces of real property." Dighton v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 399 Mass. 687, 696, 506 N.E.2d 509, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 953, 108 S.Ct. 345, 98 L.Ed.2d 371 (1987). This definition includes construction engineers such as Stone & Webster. See id. 399 Mass. at 697, 506 N.E.2d 509. In addition, we have defined the term "improvements," as used in § 2B, as "a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." Conley v. Scott Prods., Inc., 401 Mass. 645, 647, 518 N.E.2d 849 (1988), quoting Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1138 (1961). See Milligan v. Tibbetts Eng'g Corp., 391 Mass. 364, 368, 461 N.E.2d 808 (1984); Raffel v. Perley, 14 Mass.App.Ct. 242, 245, 437 N.E.2d 1082 (1982). The installation of the distribution panel in 1958 was a permanent addition to the Montaup facility, clearly involved the expenditure of labor and money, and served to make the facility productive as a power generating plant. We conclude that this work constitutes an "improvement" within the meaning of § 2B, ⁵ and thus, due to the passage of more than six years, cannot now be relied upon as a basis for this negligence suit. ⁶

2. Duty of care. We next consider whether the services performed by Stone & Webster at the Montaup plant between 1982 and 1984 did give rise to a duty to warn Parent of the high voltage in the distribution panel. If Stone & Webster did not incur such a duty, no negligence claim would lie against it. Cf. O'Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78, 520 N.E.2d 1301 (1988); J.R. Nolan & L.J. Sartorio, Tort Law § 206, at 339 (2d ed. 1989). The narrow issue is whether Stone & Webster has carried its burden of demonstrating that it engaged in no conduct subsequent to 1958 which would give rise to a duty of care toward Parent.

In answering this question, we must apply the standards that govern decision of a motion for summary judgment. A party moving for summary judgment (here Stone & Webster) has the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as matter of law. Community Nat'l Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 554, 340 N.E.2d 877 (1976). "The movant is held to a stringent standard.... [A]ny doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact will be resolved against the movant. Because the burden is on the movant, the evidence presented ... always is construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and he is given the benefit of all favorable inferences that can be drawn from it." 10A C.A. Wright, A.R. Miller, & M.K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2727, at 124-125 (2d ed. 1983). "A court should not grant a party's motion for summary judgment 'merely because the facts he offers appear more plausible than those tendered in opposition, or because it appears that the adversary is unlikely to prevail at trial.' Hayden v. First Nat'l Bank, 595 F.2d 994, 997 (5th Cir.1979), quoting 10 C.A. Wright & A.R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2725, at 514 (1973)." Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, 386 Mass. 367, 370, 436 N.E.2d 139, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 970, 103 S.Ct. 301, 74 L.Ed.2d 282 (1982). Rather, "[t]he inference to be drawn from the burden placed on the moving party is that his failure to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact must, without more from his opponent, defeat his motion." Community Nat'l Bank v. Dawes, supra. See 10A C.A. Wright, A.R. Miller, & M.K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2739, at 523-524 (2d ed.1983). See also Brunswick Corp. v. Vineberg, 370 F.2d 605, 612 (5th Cir.1967); McDonnell v. Michigan Chapter No. 10, Am. Inst. of Real Estate Appraisers, 587 F.2d 7, 8 (6th Cir.1978); Kaplan, Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1961-1963 (II), 77 Harv.L.Rev. 801, 827 (1964).

In this case, the critical document is the contract (and related attachments and memoranda) between Stone & Webster, and Montaup, Parent's employer. ⁷ It is settled that a claim in tort may arise from a contractual relationship, see Larabee v. Potvin Lumber Co., 390 Mass. 636, 640, 459 N.E.2d 93 (1983), and may be available to persons who are not parties to the contract. See Craig v. Everett M. Brooks Co., 351 Mass. 497, 501, 222 N.E.2d 752 (1967); White v. Pines Enters., Inc., 728 P.2d 759, 761 (Colo.Ct.App.1986); Scott & Fetzer Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 129 Ill.App.3d 1011, 1019, 85 Ill.Dec. 53, 473 N.E.2d 421 (1984); Schmeck v. Shawnee, 232 Kan. 11, 24, 27, 651 P.2d 585 (1982); Council of Co-owners Atlantis Condominium, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 308 Md. 18, 22, 517 A.2d 336 (1986); Essex v. New Jersey Bell Tel. Co., 166 N.J.Super. 124, 128, 399 A.2d 300 (1979); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965); J.R. Nolan & L.J. Sartorio, supra at 342; W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts § 93, at 622, 669-670 (5th ed. 1984). In particular, we have held that a defendant under a contractual obligation "is liable to third persons not parties to the contract who are foreseeably exposed to danger and injured as a result of its negligent failure to carry out that obligation." Banaghan v. Dewey, 340 Mass. 73, 80, 162 N.E.2d 807 (1959). See Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc., 386 Mass. 187, 193, 435 N.E.2d 628 (1982); Power Serv. Supply, Inc. v. E.W. Wiggins Airways, Inc., 9 Mass.App.Ct. 122, 128, 399...