Watwood v. R. R. Dawson Bridge Co., Inc.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | FAULKNER; MADDOX, J., concurs specially, in which HEFLIN, C.J., and JONES; MADDOX; HEFLIN, C.J., and JONES |
| Citation | 307 So.2d 692,293 Ala. 578 |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1975 |
| Parties | , 1974-1975 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 19,306 John WATWOOD v. R. R. DAWSON BRIDGE CO., INC., a corp., et al. SC 911. |
Page 692
v.
R. R. DAWSON BRIDGE CO., INC., a corp., et al.
[293 Ala. 579] knight, Knight & Griffith and Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh and John F. Kizer, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
[293 Ala. 580] Huie, Fernambucq, Stewart & Smith, Birmingham, for appellee, R. R. Dawson Bridge Company, Inc.
London, Yancey, Clark & Allen, Biringham, for appellee, Bellamy Brothers, Inc.
Page 693
FAULKNER, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a negligence action. The plaintiff-appellant, John Watwood, was employed by Bellamy Brothers, Inc. as a construction worker. In August, 1971, Bellamy was under subcontract to the R. R. Dawson Bridge Company for work on a portion of Interstate 65. While on this job, Watwood had occasion to use a power saw provided him by his employer, Bellamy Brothers. The saw was devoid of any retractable safety guard, and Watwood's right leg was severely cut when the saw 'kicked back' on him. Watwood filed a suit in the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit in Jefferson County on July 20, 1972. A pertinent part of the complaint reads as folllows:
'Plaintiff further avers and alleges that all of his injuries and damages are as a proximate consequence of the aforesaid negligence of the defendants in negligently causing, negligently permitting, and negligently allowing the Plaintiff to use said unsafe power saw, As aforesaid, in violation of the Federal Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, hence this suit.' (Emphasis added.)
In the initial complaint, only Dawson was specifically named as a defendant. Later an amendment substituted Bellamy Brothers for the defendant designated 'B' in the complaint. Bellamy moved to have itself struck from the suit, and the trial court granted the motion. However, Dawson later filed a third party complaint naming Bellamy as a third party defendant. On October 24, 1973, Dawson filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the pleadings, affidavits, the contracts involved, and the Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 C.F.R. 1926 et seq. (Supp.1973). These regulations were adopted pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, i9 U.S.C. §§ 651--678 (1970) (hereinafter 'OSHA'). Summary judgment was granted for the defendant and this appeal followed.
There are two assignments of error, but we will not take time to consider Assignment Two. The appellant offers no argument but simply refers us to Rules 9(h) and 15(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 9(d), Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama states that '(a)ssignments of error not substantially argued in brief will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the court.'
[293 Ala. 581] Assignment 1 states that the trial court erred in granting the motion for a summary judgment, thus the propriety of that action is the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., Inc.
...in Ray and Plough v. Midfield Park, 293 Ala. 609, 308 So.2d 686 (1974), and my special concurrence in Watwood v. Dawson Bridge Co., 293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692 (1975). I thought summary judgment was inappropriate in both those cases because the movant in both cases had not eliminated every ......
-
Knight v. Burns, Kirkley & Williams Const. Co., Inc.
...is no specific allegation of a duty owed; thus, it is not subject to dismissal on this account. Watwood v. R. R. Dawson Bridge Co., Inc., 293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692 On the question of the prime contractor's liability to Knight, the Alabama cases hold as a general rule that a prime contract......
-
Fraternal Order of Police, Strawberry Lodge No. 40 v. Entrekin
...recent cases. Bowling v. Pow, 293 Ala. 178, 301 So.2d 55; Smith v. Potts, 293 Ala. 419, 304 So.2d 578; Watwood v. R. R. Dawson Bridge Co.,293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692. Implicit in Conley and our cases is the requirement that the provable set of facts entitling plaintiff to relief must be acc......
-
City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield
...failure to state a claim. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Watwood v. R. R. Dawson Bridge Co., Inc., 293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692 However, by relieving plaintiff and intervenors of the burden of making a ceremonial averment of negligence, we have not relie......
-
Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., Inc.
...in Ray and Plough v. Midfield Park, 293 Ala. 609, 308 So.2d 686 (1974), and my special concurrence in Watwood v. Dawson Bridge Co., 293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692 (1975). I thought summary judgment was inappropriate in both those cases because the movant in both cases had not eliminated every ......
-
Knight v. Burns, Kirkley & Williams Const. Co., Inc.
...is no specific allegation of a duty owed; thus, it is not subject to dismissal on this account. Watwood v. R. R. Dawson Bridge Co., Inc., 293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692 On the question of the prime contractor's liability to Knight, the Alabama cases hold as a general rule that a prime contract......
-
Fraternal Order of Police, Strawberry Lodge No. 40 v. Entrekin
...recent cases. Bowling v. Pow, 293 Ala. 178, 301 So.2d 55; Smith v. Potts, 293 Ala. 419, 304 So.2d 578; Watwood v. R. R. Dawson Bridge Co.,293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692. Implicit in Conley and our cases is the requirement that the provable set of facts entitling plaintiff to relief must be acc......
-
City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield
...failure to state a claim. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Watwood v. R. R. Dawson Bridge Co., Inc., 293 Ala. 578, 307 So.2d 692 However, by relieving plaintiff and intervenors of the burden of making a ceremonial averment of negligence, we have not relie......