Tedrow v. Centuri Grp.
| Docket Number | 1107-2020 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 2021 |
| Parties | RONALD C. TEDROW v. CENTURI GROUP, INC., ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Washington County Case No. C-21-CV-20-284
Kehoe Nazarian, Sharer, J. Frederick, (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
On August 9, 2017, Ronald C. Tedrow was seriously injured while working at a construction jobsite in Washington County. On June 15, 2020, he filed a negligence action against NPL Construction Company, Centuri Group, Inc., and Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.[1] The gravamen of the complaint was that each appellee was under a duty to provide a safe workplace for Tedrow and failed to do so. Appellees filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
On November 13, 2020, the court granted the motions to dismiss the complaint, doing so without prejudice but also without leave to amend. The practical effect of the court's order was that, although Tedrow could file another action, any claim that he raised in it would be subject to a limitations defense. See Md. Code, Courts & Jud. Proc § 5-101.
To this court, Tedrow raises two issues, which we have reworded:
We conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting the motions to dismiss. However, the court abused its discretion when it denied Tedrow's request for leave to file an amended complaint. We reverse the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.
As we have related, Tedrow sued NPL Construction Company, Centuri Group, Inc., and Columbia Gas Company for damages resulting from his workplace injury. His 20-page complaint consists of 192 paragraphs of factual allegations and legal assertions together with nine relevant counts asserting claims for negligence, negligent hiring, and respondeat superior liability for each defendant.
In relevant part, the introductory paragraphs of the complaint state that the action is to recover "damages resulting from the negligent operation of a drill which occurred as a result of Defendants' choices to allow a dangerous construction operation to exist," and that NPL and Centuri are affiliates.
The allegations concerning the accident itself are set out in ¶¶ 10-21 of the complaint. The relevant paragraphs read as follows:
The complaint asserts that the action has been filed to recover damages arising out of "the negligent operation of a drill." The complaint does not otherwise describe what the "drill" was. Paragraph 11 alleges that Tedrow was operating the drill to "create a hole." The hole was supposed to be seventeen feet wide but was actually only ten feet wide. Is the hole that is supposed to be seventeen feet wide the same hole that Tedrow was creating? If it is, then how is anyone other than Tedrow responsible for the negligent operation of the drill? Of course, Tedrow could have been in one hole and digging another. But why not say so? It is also significant that, although it is alleged that Tedrow "was employed as a construction worker," the complaint does not identify his employer. Additionally, the complaint asserts that Tedrow was an invitee but does not provide a factual basis for that conclusion.
The complaint also contains a series of allegations as to each defendant's duties. The allegations as to each defendant are very similar. Those relating to NPL are fairly representative.
As to that defendant, the complaint asserts that NPL was under a duty to: "inspect its job sites to discover defective, dangerous conditions"; "fix defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites of which it was or should have been aware"; "warn of defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites which it could not prevent or fix"; "hire employees who are qualified to keep its job sites safe"; "hire employees who are qualified to inspect its job sites to discover defective, dangerous conditions"; "hire employees who are qualified to fix defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites of which they [were] aware"; "hire employees who are qualified to warn of defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites of which they are or should be aware that they cannot prevent or fix"; "train its employees to keep its job sites safe"; "train its employees to inspect its job sites to discover defective, dangerous conditions"; "train its employees to fix defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites of which they are aware"; "train its employees to warn of defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites of which they are or should be aware and could not prevent or fix"; "train its employees to keep clear of crush/pinch points on its jobsite; "train its employees to keep clear of holes on its jobsite"; "supervise its employees to be sure its job sites are safe”; “supervise its employees to be sure they inspect its job sites to discover defective, dangerous conditions”; “supervise its employees to be sure they fix defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites of which they are aware”; “supervise its employees to be sure they warn of defective, dangerous conditions on its job sites of which they are or should have been aware and could not prevent or fix”; “supervise its employees to keep clear of crush/pinch points on its jobsite”; “supervise its employees to keep clear of holes on its jobsite”; and “comply with federal, state, industry, and local statutes and regulations, including but not limited to OSHA Regulations: 19261430 B; and 19261053 B09.” Complaint ¶¶ 67-87. Next, the complaint alleges that NPL breached each of these duties. Complaint ¶¶ 87-104
Additionally, the complaint sought monetary damages "in an amount exceeding TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2, 000, 000.00)," which violates Md. Rule 2-305, which states in pertinent part:
Unless otherwise required by law . . . (b) a demand for a money judgment that exceeds $75, 000 shall not specify the amount sought, but shall include a general statement that the amount sought exceeds $75, 000.
On July 29, 2020, NPL and Centuri moved to dismiss the complaint. In addition to pointing out the Rule 2-305 problem, they asserted that the complaint failed to state a claim because Tedrow grouped "all Defendants together" in a manner that "fails to put NPL and Centuri on notice of any allegations against them." In particular, NPL and Centuri asserted that "[t]here is no allegation whatsoever that Centuri had any involvement at the Premises" and that the complaint "fails to list even the[] basic legal elements of a claim for negligent hiring, training, supervision" or otherwise allege "facts to show how NPL and/or Centuri satisfy those legal elements." [5]
In his written opposition to the motion, Tedrow asserted that the construction project in question "had multiple companies and contractors present on the jobsite." He proffered the following factual background for his lawsuit:
Tedrow argued that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to show that NPL and Centuri "failed to properly hire, train, and supervise its employees working at that jobsite." Because "this case is still in the early stages and discovery has yet to even begin[, ]" Tedrow maintained that he was "entitled to explore both written discovery and deposition testimony" regarding particular "hiring, training, and supervision practices" of these defendants. He also sought leave to amend his ad damnum clause to comply with Md. Rule 2-305 prohibiting a specific amount.
In their reply to Tedrow's opposition, NPL and Centuri acknowledged that Tedrow's response "does provide some additional averments" but argued that Tedrow was still "making general bald assertions and conclusory statements, and 'lumping' all defendants together as if one." Likewise,...
To continue reading
Request your trial