West v. Morrison-Knudsen Company
Decision Date | 28 January 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 2807.,2807. |
Citation | 294 F. Supp. 1336 |
Parties | Arthur E. WEST, Plaintiff, v. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, Utah Construction & Mining Company, a Corporation, Perini Corporation and C. H. Leavell & Company, a Corporation—joint venturers, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Bretz & Gabriel, Great Falls, Mont., for plaintiff.
Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Jack L. Lewis, Great Falls, Mont., for defendants.
The United States entered into a contract with the defendants, joint venturers, for the construction of various Air Force missile launching sites in Pondera County, Montana. The contract includes a provision which incorporates by reference the following Safety Requirements of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army:
Plaintiff alleges that these duties are non-delegable as provided by Appendix H of the Manual, Section D, which reads:
"Compliance with the provisions of this article by subcontractors will be the responsibility of the Contractor."
A further duty allegedly owed to the plaintiff is based upon a provision of the Manual which was a part of the contract:
The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor. Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on oil which had leaked onto a trailer bed from which he was unloading gas cylinders for welding. The plaintiff seeks to recover from defendants on the theory that a duty was owed to him due to the incorporation of the safety provisions of the Manual into the general contract.
Defendants support their motion to dismiss on the ground that an employee of a subcontractor, even though a third-party beneficiary of the safety requirements in the general contract, may not, under Montana law, maintain an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West v. Morrison-Knudsen Company
...and answers filed in the action. The court entered an order dismissing the case and denying plaintiff all relief. West v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 294 F.Supp. 1336 (D.Mont.1969). The court held that no recovery could be based upon the contract provisions, even though this plaintiff might be de......