 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Locke v. Ozark City Board of Education4/15/2005
eigler, 364 So. 2d at 1166. Therefore, this Court held that because the contract directly benefited the power company and would not necessarily benefit the customer, Zeigler was an incidental, rather than an intended direct, beneficiary of the contract between the power company and the contractor. Id.
On the other hand, in H.R.H. Metals, Inc., Vulcan Materials Company contracted with H.R.H Metals, Inc., to purchase and remove three buildings located on property belonging to Vulcan. 833 So. 2d at 21. H.R.H. signed a contract with Vulcan that provided, in pertinent part:
"[H.R.H] covenants to follow Vulcan's safety rules and to maintain its own safety and health program for its employees, subcontractors, and agents sufficient to prevent injury or illness to such persons resulting from their presence on the Vulcan premises...."
H.R.H. Metals, Inc., 833 So. 2d at 21. H.R.H. hired a subcontractor, Carl Miller, to demolish and remove one of the buildings. Id. at 22. While in the process of demolishing the building, Miller walked across a skylight and fell 20 feet, seriously injuring himself. Id. Miller sued H.R.H., alleging, among other things, that H.R.H. had breached its contract with Vulcan to provide safety equipment to subcontractors, that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Vulcan and H.R.H, that H.R.H. had breached that contract, and that he had been injured by H.R.H.'s breach of the contract.
On appeal, this Court noted that in order for a person to be a third-party beneficiary of a contract, the contracting parties must have intended to bestow benefits on third parties. H.R.H. Metals, Inc., 833 So. 2d at 24. This Court held that to ascertain the intent of the parties "we must first look to the contract itself, because while ' he intention of the parties controls in construing a written contract,' 'the intention of the parties is to be derived from the contract itself where the language is plain and unambiguous.'" H.R.H. Metals, Inc., 833 So. 2d at 24 (quoting Loerch v. National Bank of Commerce of Birmingham, 624 So. 2d 552, 553 (Ala. 1993)). We then noted that the contract between H.R.H. and Vulcan specifically provided that H.R.H. was to "maintain its own safety and health program for its employees, subcontractors, and agents sufficient to prevent injury or illness to such persons resulting from their presence on the Vulcan premises." 833 So. 2d at 25. This Court held that "the emphasized language reflects an intention on the part of the contracting parties to bestow a direct benefit on [the plaintiff] ...." 833 So. 2d at 25.
In this case, the Board argues that "Locke was not an intended beneficiary of the AHSAA contract." The Board relies on Gardner v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc., 538 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1988), in which a corporation hired a security company to provide protection in the corporation's parking lot to its employees as they were arriving at and leaving work. 518 So. 2d at 13. The instructions to the security guards specified certain times and places female employees would be arriving at work, and provided that the security guards were to escort them into the building. Id. at 14. The security guards were also to perform security checks around the perimeter of the company's property at certain intervals. Id. However, the contract also provided that, "Guards will use bathroom facilities in [the company's] building, but will not visit or linger in the building for any extended period of time." Gardner, 538 So. 2d at 14.
One morning, when a group of female employees, including the plaintiff, arrived for work, a security guard met them at the door and told them that "he had interrupted someone trying to break into
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|