 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Hales & Warner Construction1/27/2005
(For Official Publication)
Plaintiffs Kelly Smith and Lisa Nielsen, heirs of Jason Smith (Decedent), appeal the trial court's grant of Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claim of wrongful death. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 1999, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CPB) contracted with Hales & Warner Construction, Inc. (H&W) to build a church on CPB's property in Highland, Utah. The CPB-H&W contract allowed CPB to reject any subcontractor selected by H&W. CPB hired an architect to act as an intermediary between CPB and H&W. H&W then subcontracted with Brent Reynolds Construction, Inc. (BRC) to perform " ll of the Section 06100 Rough Carpentry complete, including all labor and materials, all material handling and crane time, except wood trusses to be supplied by others but installed by BRC." Subsequently, BRC subcontracted with Egbert Construction, Inc. (EC) to provide all rough carpentry labor on section 06100.
EC hired and trained Michael Lewis, José Lewis, and Decedent to frame the church. On August 13, 1999, the three men were raising a wooden framed wall under the immediate direction of an EC supervisor. The wall fell as the men were attempting to install bolt studs designed to hold the wall in place. While the other two framers got clear, Decedent appeared to try to catch the falling wall. The wall fell on Decedent, killing him. Thereafter, Plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action against CPB and H&W, alleging that CPB and H&W negligently exercised authority and control over the construction of the church, resulting in Decedent's death.
Both Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not exercise control over Decedent so as to be liable for his death and that only EC trained and educated the framers on how to raise a framed wall. In its ruling, the trial court determined that (1) no evidence existed showing that H&W or CPB were involved in, or interfered with, the hiring, training, or education of the framers; (2) the framers were under the direction, supervision, instruction, and control of EC; and (3) while H&W had a representative, Maurice Egbert, on CPB's property when Decedent was killed, the representative was inside a trailer and had no involvement in the framing. Accordingly, the trial court granted Defendants' summary judgment motions.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiffs aver that the trial court erred when it granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' protection from suit as employers of independent contractors is destroyed by Defendants' retention of control over the independent contractors. Thus, the issue before us is whether Defendants are liable under the doctrine of "retained control."
"We review the district court's grant of summary judgment for correctness, according no deference to the court's legal conclusions." Thompson v. Jess, 1999 UT 22, , 979 P.2d 322 (quotations and citations omitted). We view facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d 1383, 1384 (Utah 1996). Furthermore, " or a moving party to be entitled to summary judgment, it must establish a right to judgment based on the applicable law as applied to the undisputed facts." Smith v. Four Corners Med. Health Ctr., Inc., 2003 UT 23, , 70 P.3d 904.
ANALYSIS
H&W and CPB's liability is contingent upon their relationship with each other and with Decedent. "Utah adheres to the general common law
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|