Rebert v. Brook Furniture Rental, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 8:20-cv-00067-GLS |
| Parties | DAVID REBERT, Plaintiff, v. BROOK FURNITURE RENTAL, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Pending before this Court are the following motions: (1) a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant USA Rack Installations LLC. (“USA Rack”) (ECF No. 49) (“USA Rack's Motion”); and (2) a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Brook Furniture Rental, Inc. (“Brook Furniture”) (ECF No. 50) (“Brook Furniture's Motion”). The issues have been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 55, 57, 59). Upon review of the pleadings and the record, the Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See L.R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, USA Rack's summary judgment motion against Plaintiff is DENIED; and Brook Furniture's summary judgment motion against Plaintiff is DENIED.
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging negligence, negligence per se, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision against Brook Furniture, USA Rack, and Defendant PPF LPC 9950 BUSS PKWY LLC. (ECF No. 1). On January 9, 2020, USA Rack filed its Answer and Notice of Removal from Prince Georges County's Circuit Court to this federal court. (ECF No. 1; See also ECF No. 7). On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant PPF LPC 9950 BUSS PKWY LLC. (ECF No. 6).[1] On January 17, 2020, USA Rack filed a “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.” (ECF No. 15). The Honorable Theodore Chuang denied ECF No. 15 without prejudice and scheduled a pre-motion conference for January 30, 2020. (ECF No. 16). On January 28, 2020, USA Rack filed a “Notice of Intent to file a Motion” seeking leave to file a “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). (ECF No. 17). According to USA Rack, the Complaint lacked the requisite factual specificity to allow the Court to infer what negligent acts USA Rack allegedly committed. (Id.). On January 30, 2020, the Honorable Theodore Chuang held a Case Management Conference, during which the parties discussed ECF No. 17. (ECF No. 20). Judge Chuang granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by February 14, 2020. (ECF No. 21).
On February 11, 2020, this case was referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 24). On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging negligence, negligence per se, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision against Defendant Brook Furniture Rental, Inc., and USA Rack. (ECF No. 26).
On March 6, 2020, USA Rack filed a letter notifying the Court of its intent to file the following motions: (1) Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Amended Complaint for Failure to Comply with Local Rule 103(6)(c); (2) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim; (3) Motion to Dismiss Count 3 (negligence per se); and, as alternative relief, (4) Motion for More Definite Statement. (ECF No. 29). In response, Plaintiff sought leave from the Court to file a second amended complaint. On April 21, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and denied USA Rack's request to file its motions. (ECF No. 37).
On May 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, alleging various forms of negligence against Brook Furniture and USA Rack. Plaintiff maintains that he suffered severe injuries after he was struck by an unsecured steel beam on August 16, 2016. (ECF No. 39, “Second Amended Complaint, ” ¶ 12). In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Brook Furniture was negligent for failing to protect him from injury while he was working in a warehouse that it leased. (“Second Amended Complaint, ” ¶¶ 27-35). Plaintiff also contends that USA Rack was negligent for failing to ensure its employees safely disassembled the racks in Brook Furniture's warehouse. (Id., ¶¶ 55-68). USA Rack filed its Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on June 17, 2020.[2](ECF No. 40, “USA Rack's Answer”).
Presently, what remains are the following counts in the Second Amended Complaint: Count 1, negligence, against Brook Furniture; Count 2, negligence, against USA Rack; Count 6, agency, against Brook Furniture; and Count 7, agency, against USA Rack.[3] Regarding Plaintiff's prayer for relief, only issues related to medical expenses and pain and suffering remain. (See ECF No. 59, (“Plaintiff's Opposition to USA Rack's Motion”), p. 16).
The aforementioned summary judgment motions were filed by USA Rack and Brook Furniture at the close of discovery.[4]
A. August 16, 2016 Incident
The following facts are undisputed. The instant case stems from an August 16, 2016 incident that occurred in a warehouse leased by Brook Furniture, which is located at 9950 Business Parkway in Lanham, Maryland (“the warehouse”). (J.R. Exhibit 13, p. 501, Deposition of Annie Marie Hart (“Hart Dep.”): 29:18-30:3). Brook Furniture stored its inventory in that warehouse using a large metal racking system. (Hart Dep.: 32:5-9, 72:12-73:3). The racking system in the warehouse consisted of at least five rows of racks that were approximately 200 feet long and 25 feet tall. (J.R. Exhibit 1, p .10, Deposition of Andrew Rupert (“Rupert Dep.”); 22:2-10).
Plaintiff David Rebert was employed by JK Moving and Storage, Inc. (“JK Moving”). (J.R. Exhibit 2, p. 82, Deposition of David Rebert (“Rebert Dep.”): 42:8-19). Brook Furniture hired JK moving to move the furniture stored on the metal racks at the warehouse to another Brook Furniture storage location. (Hart Dep.: 33:15-20). The contractual agreement between Brook Furniture and JK Moving required Brook Furniture to have a supervisor on site at the warehouse. (J.R. Exhibit 14, p. 554, Scope of Services Agreement; Hart Dep.: 51:11-15).
Brook Furniture also hired a contractor to disassemble the metal racking system, which in turn subcontracted that work to USA Rack. (J.R. 12, p. 459, Deposition of Miguel Suarez Hernandez (“Hernandez Dep.”): 64:17-65:3). Rob Prium, a Brook Furniture employee, was responsible for communicating with JK Moving and USA Rack about their work at the warehouse and informed JK Moving that USA Rack would be on site dismantling the racking system at the same time as JK Moving. (Hart. Dep.: 77:18-78:9).
USA Rack was the only contractor at the warehouse tasked with dismantling the racking system at the time of the incident. (Hernandez Dep.: 65:4-67:5). USA Rack's safety policy required its employees to place safety cones around the perimeter of a worksite whenever “working with other contractors on site.” (J.R. Exhibit 15, p. 613, USA Rack Safety Rules 2016-2017 (“USA Rack Safety Rules”); Hernandez Dep.: 18:22-19:7). USA Rack's corporate designee testified that the company's safety cone policy was intended to keep persons who were not employees of USA Rack out of the rack disassembly areas because they are construction sites. (Hernandez Dep.; 78:14-18). These facts are clearly undisputed and relevant.
The following facts are also undisputed. On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff and Mr. Rupert were removing pieces of furniture from the bottom section of a rack when a hammer fell from the upper levels of the rack, nearly hitting Plaintiff and Mr. Rupert.[5] (Rebert Dep.: 69:12-71:4), (Rupert Dep.; 34:6-35:3). Following this incident, Plaintiff and Mr. Rupert expressed concerns to their supervisor at JK Moving, Luis Ruiz, about the risk of working without a hardhat in close proximity to the USA Rack employees. (Rebert Dep.: 69:1-72:18; Rupert Dep: 34:2-41:12). Plaintiff told his supervisor that (Rebert Dep.: 69:4-11). The JK Moving supervisor told Plaintiff and Mr. Rupert that they could keep working or leave the job site without pay. (Rupert Dep.; 88:10-16). Plaintiff and Mr. Rupert remained at the warehouse and kept working. (Rebert Dep.: 71:15-20).
On the following day, August 16, 2016, Plaintiff was tasked with taking inventory of furniture located near the warehouse's loading bays. (Rebert Dep.: 73:11-75:19). This was a different assignment in a different area of the warehouse than where Plaintiff had been working the previous day. (Rebert Dep.: 73:11-75:19). Rob Prium, Brook Furniture's primary point of contact for JK Moving and USA Rack, was “in and out of the warehouse” that day. (Hart Dep.: 76:8-13). At the time of the incident, USA Rack employees were disassembling part of the racking system. (Hernandez Dep.: 67:1-4). While USA Rack was dismantling one of the racks, a safety pin broke. (Hernandez Dep.: 43:19-44:8). A large steel beam fell from the rack USA Rack was disassembling, hit the forks of a forklift, and then fell to the ground striking Plaintiff and knocking him unconscious. (Rupert Dep: 53:20-54:15; Rebert Dep.: 80:9-81:16, 82:3-9; Hernandez Dep., 41:8-12). Plaintiff suffered injuries to his head and neck. (Rebert Dep.: 100:1-105:20).
Just prior to the incident, Plaintiff heard falling metal. (Rebert Dep.: 80:7-81:6). Plaintiff said that it “was loud because they are throwing metal off.” (Id.). Plaintiff did not see the object that struck him (Rebert Dep.: 81:7-9), and was not wearing a hardhat at the time of the incident. (Rebert Dep.: 73:8-21; Hernandez Dep.; 73:7-12).
The following facts are in dispute. First, there is a question whether cones were placed around the permitter of the racks that USA Rack employees were disassembling at the time of the incident. According to Plaintiff and Mr. Rupert, USA Rack employees did not place any cones around the racks they were disassembling. (Rebert Dep.: 78:7-14; Rupert Dep:...
To continue reading
Request your trial