 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hittel v. Wotco2/16/2000
Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge
In this case, we consider whether an owner who advises an independent contractor of safety concerns existing on the owne's premises is liable for injuries to an employee of the independent contractor. Appellant Gary Hittel (Hittel), an employee of the independent contractor, Steel Structures, Inc. (SSI), fell through a skylight on Appellee WOTCO, Inc.=s roof while repairing it and suffered serious injury. Hittel filed a personal injury suit against WOTCO; however, the district court ruled as a matter of law that WOTCO owed no legal duty to Hittel and granted summary judgment to WOTCO.
We affirm the district cour's order of summary judgment.
ISSUES
Hittel presents these issues for our review:
1. Whether the facts in the record present a genuine issue of material fact which preclude the entry of summary judgment by the trial court.
2. Whether the protection afforded to owners against injury claims by an employee of an independent contractor should extend to claims by an employee of a temporary employment service who is being used by an independent contractor.
3. Whether the facts in the record support a claim based upon the direct negligence of WOTCO.
WOTCO states the issues to be:
1. Did the district court correctly find that this owner did not retain control of the independent contracto's work or assume affirmative safety duties, on this roofing project?
2. Did the district court correctly find that this owner did not have a duty of care to the appellant?
3. Where the appellant recovered worker ' compensation benefits from his contributing employer, and where the appellant then recovered a policy limits tort settlement from his controlling employer, should the owner have to pay for injuries caused by that independent contractor/controlling employee?
4. Did the district court correctly enter summary judgment for the owner?
FACTS
WOTCO owns several buildings in Wyoming, and in 1996 decided to replace the roof on them. It retained a local engineering firm to design the new roofs and provide for construction observation. WOTCO accepted the engineering fir's proposed plans and, after receiving a bid from SSI to complete the work, awarded it with the roofing contract. The contract between WOTCO and SSI expressly stated that SSI was an independent contractor and required SSI to provide all safeguards. Before construction began, WOTCO personnel met with SSI, primarily to discuss clearance for SSI employees to enter WOTCO premises. During that meeting, WOTCO informed SSI of multiple skylights on its roof so that SSI would take precautions.
Hittel was the employee of a temporary employment agency named Trademark Personnel. Upon SS 's request that it provide a laborer for the roofing contract, Trademark sent Hittel. Trademark paid Hittel and paid premiums to the stat's worker ' compensation program for Hittel. SSI did not pay premiums. SSI roofed the buildings in accordance with the plans provided by the local engineering firm. Hittel concedes that SSI was an independent contractor and does not allege that WOTCO retained control over any of SS's work.
Near the end of the roofing project, on November 14, 1996, Hittel fell through a skylight and suffered severe injuries. He was paid worke's compensation benefits and filed a personal injury suit against SSI, which was settled. Claiming that WOTCO assumed safety duties, Hittel then filed a personal injury suit against WOTCO. WOTCO filed a motion for summary judgment arguing th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|