 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Centex Forcum Lannom11/7/2000
cial duty clause" is intended "for the special benefit of all employees, including the employees of an independent contractor, who perform work at another employer's workplace." Id. However, "the class of employers who owe a duty under the specific duty clause is defined with reference to control of the workplace and opportunity to comply with OSHA regulations." Id. at 477. Thus, control of the workplace determines if an employer owes a special duty to everyone performing work at that location. It is undisputed that Coreslab had no control over the area in which Mr. Johnson was injured, having previously turned over control to Tyson or Centex after completing its work. As such, Coreslab no longer had any special duties to any workers who were present in that area.
Since Mr. Johnson was injured in an area outside of Coreslab's control, Coreslab owed him no duty under the special duty clause. Additionally, as already discussed, Coreslab owed Mr. Johnson no duty under the general duty clause. Thus, it is clear to this court that there are no OSHA regulations which impose any duty on Coreslab to protect Mr. Johnson. As such, the trial court erred in its denial of Coreslab's motion for summary judgment. We hereby reverse the trial court's ruling denying Coreslab's motion for summary judgment.
We note that Mr. Johnson has raised several claims as to common law negligence. For a common law negligence action to avoid summary judgment, several factors must be determined, foremost of which is the finding of a duty between the injured and the defendant. We can find no such duty. Mr. Johnson notes that the trial court, in its order denying Coreslab's motion for summary judgment, found substantial evidence that the holes were negligently covered. However, Coreslab did not cover these holes, and, as such, any negligence in their covering has no bearing on this case. Mr. Johnson also cites a series of cases finding a duty to use due care to reduce the danger of injury if a dangerous condition exists. Upon our review, we note that each of these cases addresses the owner and/or occupier of the property. Coreslab, at the time the injury occurred, was neither and thus these cases have no bearing on our decision.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing conclusions, we hereby affirm the trial court in its granting of summary judgment to both Centex and Tyson. We reverse the trial court's denial of Coreslab's motion for summary judgment and hereby grant that motion. Costs on appeal are assessed against the appellant, Donnie Wayne Johnson, Jr., and his surety, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|