 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hittel v. Wotco2/16/2000
tion coverage premiums for Hittel, who did receive benefits. Additionally, his personal injury suit against SSI resulted in a settlement of their full liability insurance policy limit. It can safely be assumed that all costs associated with worke's compensation and insurance coverage were passed along to WOTCO, and in these particular circumstances we believe that the Jones rule remains applicable despite Hitte's status as a temporary employee.
Direct Negligence
Finally, Hittel contends that a legal duty should be imposed upon WOTCO because it knew of the dangers posed by the skylights and took no precautions. He relies upon the rule set forth in Hull v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 812 F.2d 584, 589 (10 th Cir. 1987), that an owne's duty to an invitee who may be the employee of an independent contractor is that of reasonable care under the circumstances.
WOTCO claims that Hitte's reliance upon Hull is misplaced. It quotes the following to show that Hull approved a jury instruction incorporating an enhanced duty of care for an owner engaged in ultra hazardous activities.
Moreover, Chevron ignores the fact that Wyoming law recognizes that the drilling of an oil and gas well is an ultra hazardous activity, a dangerous agency. Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Like, 381 P.2d 70 (Wyo. 1963). Wyoming law remains, as previously stated by this court, that the owne's duty to an invitee who may be the employee of an independent contractor is that of reasonable care under all the circumstances, Aincluding the duty to take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from dangers which are foreseeable from the arrangement or use.@ Ruhs v. Pacific Power & Light, 671 F.2d 1268, 1272 (10 th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); Pan American Petroleum v. Like, 381 P.2d at 74. The district cour's instruction properly incorporated the higher standard of care adopted by Wyoming for businesses engaged in ultrahazardous activities.
Hull, 812 F.2d at 589. In those cases that do not involve ultrahazardous activities, the owner does not have a duty of care to employees of an independent contractor unless that owner Aretains the right to direct the manner of an independent contracto's performance or assumes affirmative duties with respect to safety.@ Jones, 718 P.2d at 896. As just discussed, Hitte's claim that WOTCO assumed affirmative duties with respect to safety is unsupported by evidence, and we uphold the district court ruling that WOTCO did not owe Hittel a legal duty as a matter of law.
The district cour's order of summary judgment is affirmed.
|