Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc.
Decision Date | 02 October 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 16409,16409 |
Parties | Roy PEONE and Janet Peone, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REGULUS STUD MILLS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Charles M. Dodson, Coeur d'Alene, and Joseph S. Montecucco (argued), Spokane, Wash., for defendant-respondent.
Today, we must answer the question of whether a party to a contract owes a duty of care to the employees of the other contracting party who under the contract is engaged to perform logging activities, in light of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 413 or § 416. This question is certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to I.A.R. 12.1.
The facts as contained in this certification are brief. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc., a sawmill operator, held timber rights to land in north Idaho. Regulus awarded Haynes Logging a contract to remove timber from the land and to deliver it to the Regulus mill. Roy Peone, an employee of Haynes working on the Regulus contract, was injured by a falling dead tree, or snag. As a result of the accident, Peone is now a paraplegic.
Peone filed suit against Regulus in Federal District Court, with jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship. Peone alleges that Regulus is liable for his injuries because it negligently employed an incompetent contractor, Haynes Logging, which had acted negligently in removing the timber.
The United States District Court entered summary judgment for Regulus. The court concluded that even though logging is an inherently dangerous activity, 1 as a matter of law Regulus owed no duty to Peone to select a safety-conscious independent contractor, nor did vicarious liability attach for Haynes' failure to use due care. The District Court acknowledged that no controlling Idaho precedent existed, but, nevertheless, it had to make a decision to proceed with the case. Appeal was taken to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In turn, that court pursuant to I.A.R. 12.1 certified the following question to this Court:
The question presented is a narrow one. We are asked to determine whether §§ 413 or 416 of the Restatement is consistent with Idaho law and creates a duty. We are not asked to decide whether any other facet of the law creates a duty. The dissent suggests the Idaho Minimum Safety Standards & Practices for Logging creates such a duty. This contention may or may not be correct, but it is not for us to decide. Peone, as plaintiff, chose the federal forum as the arena to vindicate his rights. Our role is limited to answering the certified question. Peone, can argue the applicability of the regulations before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. For us to now decide the matter would result in an advisory opinion on a question not certified. The regulations adopted by the Industrial The two exceptions at issue today are §§ 413 and 416 of the Restatement (Second). These sections read as follows:
[113 Idaho 376] Commission do not have any effect on whether the Restatement sections at issue should be the law in Idaho.
Courts have not hesitated to adopt §§ 413 and 416 with regard to a duty owed to injured members of the general public. See Comment, Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors Engaged in Inherently Dangerous Work: A Workable Workers' Compensation Proposal, 48 Fordham Law Rev. 1165, 1167 (1980). Section 413 imposes liability on the third party employer for injuries caused by peculiar or unreasonable risks of physical harm to others. As stated in the comment to § 413:
Section 416 applies specifically to work considered inherently dangerous. It imposes vicarious liability on the third party owner for the contractor's negligence on the theory that the third party owner's duty to use reasonable care is nondelegable presumably due to the hazardous nature of the work.
The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, has explained the rationale underlying § 416 as follows:
Lindler v. District of Columbia, 502 F.2d 495, 498 (D.C.Cir.1974). (Emphasis in original.)
The issue we address today, is whether employees of independent contractors are included within the class of "others" within the meaning of the Restatement provisions §§ 413 and 416. This issue has seen much debate among the various jurisdictions throughout the United States. See generally Included among the jurisdictions that have adopted §§ 413 or 416 and impose liability are the following: Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co., 24 Cal.3d 502, 156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619 (1979); Clausen v. R.W. Gilbert Const. Co. Inc., 309 N.W.2d 462 (Iowa 1981); Thon v. Saginaw Paint & Manufacturing Co., 120 Mich.App. 745, 327 N.W.2d 551 (1982); Peterson v. City of Golden Valley, N.D., 308 N.W.3d 550 (N.D.1981); and Lindler v. District of Columbia, 502 F.2d 495 (D.C.Cir.1974) ( ). The rationale offered by these courts for imposing liability vary. For example, the Aceves court stated:
[113 Idaho 377] Employer Liability--Contractors' Employees, 34 A.L.R. 4th 914 (1984).
Some courts have rejected the rationale contained in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Special Note to ch. 15, (Tent. Draft. No. 7, 1962), pp. 17-18, 2 which, if adopted, would have limited liability for injured employees to workmen's compensation benefits. The District of Columbia Court noted that this tentative draft was not included in the final draft of the Restatement, and, therefore, should not be used for support. Lindler, supra, at 499. "The question is not who may ultimately bear the costs [of worker's compensation], but rather who does the law require to bear the costs." Id. at 499. Dean Prosser explained why the language of the tentative draft was not included in the final version of the Restatement. He stated that workmen's compensation statutes vary widely among the jurisdictions and concluded "that it appears undesirable, if not impossible,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.
...on-site safety precautions." (639 F.2d at p. 478.) The Nelson approach was followed in Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc. 1987) 113 Idaho 374, 744 P.2d 102, which held a lumber mill was not liable on either peculiar risk theory (section 413 or 416) for injuries caused by a falling snag (dead......
-
Privette v. Superior Court
...the person who hired the contractor. (Wagner v. Continental 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......
-
Herrell v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co. Llc, 99,451.
...Power and Light Co. v. Price, 170 So.2d 293 [Fla.1964]; Pearson v. Harris, 449 So.2d 339 [Fla.Dist.App.1984]; Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc., 113 Idaho 374, 744 P.2d 102 [1987]; Johns v. New York Blower Co., 442 N.E.2d 382 [Ind.App.1982]; King v. Shelby Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., ......
-
Dillard v. Strecker
...a third party owner should not be exposed to greater liability by employing an independent contractor.' Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc., [113 Idaho 374 at] 378 [744 P.2d 102 (1987) ]. "There are other reasons to support our conclusion denying liability. First, a fundamental principle of o......
-
Falls on Construction Sites
...hired the contractor. See Wagner v. Continental Casualty Co ., 143 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 (......