 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bomar v. Farmers Cooperative Association12/27/1999
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Frank B. Nelson, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from the district court's summary judgment ruling in favor of defendant in plaintiff's personal injury action.
With control comes responsibility. Heath Bomar claims a legally-recognized relationship existed when Marathon Coop hired his employer to install grain handling equipment and it also assumed a duty to provide a safe working environment. The trial court disagreed with Bomar's assertions and granted Marathon Coop summary judgment. Because Marathon Coop did not exercise sufficient control over the construction, we find no relationship existed as a matter of law. The trial court is affirmed.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings.
Farmers Cooperative Association of Marathon, Iowa, sought to construct a large grain storage facility capable of holding 1.3 million bushels of grain. Marathon Coop placed one of its employees, Randy Dunn, in charge of hiring independent contractors to perform each phase of the construction. Marathon Coop did not employ a general contractor to oversee and direct the construction. Marathon Coop hired one contractor to do the initial excavating, a second to actually construct the building, a third to wire the building, and one to install the grain handling equipment. During construction, Dunn was called upon to occasionally monitor each contractor's headway, answer questions, and describe the intended operation of the facility.
Each phase was quickly completed, and soon the only remaining task was the installation of the grain handling equipment. The company hired to complete that phase of the project was Midwest Elevator, Inc. In performing its phase of the construction, one of its employees, Heath Bomar, slipped while caulking around some ventilation fans on the roof of the structure. Bomar slid completely off the roof and sustained serious injuries as a result of the fall.
Bomar filed suit against Marathon Coop claiming it failed to comply with various common law and statutory duties that would have prevented his injuries. Marathon Coop moved for summary judgment claiming no such duties arose as it was not a general contractor nor did it retain control over the construction site. The district court, in granting the motion for summary judgment, ruled as a matter of law Marathon Coop did not owe Bomar a duty of care.
Bomar now appeals, claiming the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Marathon Coop was a defacto general contractor and, in the alternative, retained sufficient control over the construction site as to impose the various duties.
II. Standard of Review.
Our review of a grant or denial of summary judgment is at law. Iowa R. App. P. 4; Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267, 270 (Iowa 1996). Summary judgment is only appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 237(c); Phipps v. IASD Health Servs. Corp., 558 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1997). We review the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment; in this sense, we consider a motion for summary judgment as we would a motion for directed verdict. Dickerson v. Mertz, 547 N.W.2d 208, 212 (Iowa 1996). Under this standard, summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable minds would differ on how the issue should be resolved. Id.
Normally, summary adjudication of claims of negligence is inappropriate. Rieger v. Jacque, 584 N.W.2d 247, 250 (Iowa 1998). This broad statement, however, is not without exception, for "the threshold determination of whether the defendan
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|