Barnes, D. v. ALCOA, Inc.
145 A.3d 730
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Feb. 8, 2011 David Barnes slipped on snow/ice in Kawneer’s employee parking lot, fracturing his femur and requiring above-knee amputation.
- Kawneer contracted with G&M Crawford to clear snow; Kawneer is a subsidiary of Alcoa; Alcoa is parent company with corporate safety functions and periodic audits at the Kawneer plant.
- Appellants sued multiple defendants including Alcoa and G&M; after plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted a compulsory nonsuit as to Alcoa but denied it as to G&M; jury later awarded $1.3M against G&M.
- Plaintiffs pursued negligent hiring/supervision and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (undertaking) claims against Alcoa.
- Trial court found insufficient evidence that Alcoa employed or controlled the individuals who hired/supervised G&M or that Alcoa undertook responsibility for parking-lot snow removal; nonsuit as to Alcoa was entered and affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alcoa can be liable for negligent hiring/supervision of G&M | Barnes argued evidence permitted inference that Kawneer supervisors (Fox, Carr) were Alcoa employees or that Alcoa hired/supervised G&M | Alcoa argued no evidence showed it employed or controlled Fox or Carr or hired/supervised G&M; contract was between G&M and Kawneer | Court held nonsuit proper: no competent evidence of Alcoa employment/control or that Alcoa hired/supervised G&M (would be speculative) |
| Whether Alcoa is liable under Restatement § 324A (undertaking) for parking-lot safety | Barnes argued Alcoa’s periodic safety audits and corporate safety role showed Alcoa undertook duty to ensure parking-lot/snow-removal safety | Alcoa argued audits addressed manufacturing operations, not property maintenance/snow removal, and it never undertook responsibility for the parking lot | Court held nonsuit proper: plaintiffs presented no trial evidence that Alcoa undertook a duty regarding the parking lot or snow removal; verdict would require speculation |
| Preservation: whether plaintiffs preserved § 324A and negligent hiring/supervision claims for appeal | Barnes argued post-trial motion and concise statement sufficiently raised the theories (even if not by label) | Alcoa argued waiver for failure to identify issues by name in post-trial motion and concise statement | Court found claims preserved: complaint, motions, and concise statement sufficiently put court and parties on notice of those theories |
| Standard of review for compulsory nonsuit | N/A — legal standard applied by court | N/A | Court applied view-evidence-in-plaintiff’s-favor standard and found no factual dispute to send negligent-hiring or § 324A claims to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Printed Image of York, Inc. v. Mifflin Press, Ltd., 133 A.3d 55 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for compulsory nonsuit; court must prevent verdicts based on speculation)
- Kiehl v. Action Mfg. Co., 535 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1987) (paycheck bearing parent-co. name is not by itself evidence of parent employment)
- Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc., 51 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. 2012) (employee status requires evidence of power and authority to direct/control work)
- Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, 118 A.3d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2015) (adoption of Restatement § 324A principles in Pennsylvania)
- Cantwell v. Allegheny Cnty., 483 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1984) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court adoption of section 324A)
- Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (purpose and importance of Pa.R.A.P. 1925 concise statement)