Benjamin William Vandewarker v. Continental Resources, Inc.
917 F.3d 626
8th Cir.2019Background
- Vandewarker, a Great Western Resources employee, gauged and hauled wastewater at Continental Resources’ North Dakota well sites; he climbed a metal staircase attached to a holding tank to gauge levels.
- On October 18, 2012, he fell 10–15 feet from a staircase due to a loose bolt/disconnected bracket and suffered rib, back, and shoulder injuries.
- Vandewarker (Oregon citizen) sued Continental (Oklahoma company) in diversity court alleging negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming Continental failed to install, inspect, and maintain the staircase and that he informed a Continental employee of the defect two days before the fall.
- Continental moved for summary judgment arguing it was the employer of an independent contractor (Great Western) and therefore owed no duty to Great Western’s employee; Continental conceded it supplied the staircase but denied control over the contractor’s methods.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Continental, finding Continental neither retained contractual control over operative details nor actually exercised such control; Vandewarker appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding under North Dakota law Continental owed no duty to Vandewarker as it did not control the manner, method, or operative details of his work; premises-liability arguments raised for the first time on appeal were not considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Continental owed a duty to Vandewarker as employer of an independent contractor’s employee | Contract language (“full and complete satisfaction of Continental”) creates triable issue of retained control; Continental knew of stair defect | Contract places safety responsibility on Great Western; Continental did not retain or exercise control over operative details | No duty: contract language insufficient to show retained control; Continental did not control methods or supervise use of equipment |
| Whether Continental actually exercised control over Great Western or Vandewarker | Continental owned/provided the staircase and had site safety interest, implying control | Mere provision of equipment and interest in safety do not establish control absent direct supervision or instruction | No duty: mere ownership/provision of equipment and site safety interest insufficient to impose duty |
| Whether failure to answer amended complaints created admissions under Rule 8(b)(6) preventing summary judgment | Continental’s failure to answer amended complaints should be deemed admissions, defeating summary judgment | Continental previously answered substantive allegations; amended complaints added no new substantive claims against Continental | Not an admission: prior answer covered substantive allegations; summary judgment record properly considered |
| Whether a premises-liability theory could be considered on appeal | (Raised for first time on appeal) | Continental argued issue was not raised below | Not considered: premises-liability claim was not pled or litigated below and cannot be raised for first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pechtl v. Conoco, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 1997) (court treats existence of duty from retained control as preliminary legal question under §414)
- Kristianson v. Flying J Oil & Gas, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1996) (mere provision of equipment does not create duty; employer must directly supervise or instruct employee)
- Madler v. McKenzie Cnty., 467 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1991) (contract language may create duty when it grants right to control operative details)
- Fleck v. ANG Coal Gasification Co., 522 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 1994) (focus on control of method, manner, and operative details when assessing duty)
- Edelman v. Belco Title & Escrow, LLC, 754 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2014) (failure to answer an amended complaint is not dispositive where prior answer addressed the same allegations)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue if record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)
- Kiemele v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 93 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo review of district court decision)