571 S.W.3d 528
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Leon Bennett, an employee of subcontractor Mobley Contractors, was killed when a crane boom sheared and fell while he worked below it on a bridge project.
- Graves & Associates was the prime/general contractor for the ADT bridge project; Mobley performed crane operations as a subcontractor.
- OSHA reported the crane was tilted and the lift was side loaded when the boom sheared; liability litigation followed among Bennett (personal representative of Leon), Graves, and Mobley.
- Graves moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no tort duty to a subcontractor’s employee for risks inherent to the subcontracted work; the circuit court granted the motion and dismissed Bennett’s wrongful-death suit.
- Bennett appealed, arguing Graves had assumed a tort duty to subcontractor employees by contract with the ADT, which required compliance with safety laws, provision of safeguards, and retained supervisory authority.
- The appellate court held that, given Graves’s contractual safety and supervisory obligations, Graves assumed a duty in tort to protect workers and reversed and remanded for fact issues on breach and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graves owed a tort duty to a subcontractor’s employee | Bennett: Graves’s contract with ADT imposed safety duties and retained supervisory authority, creating a duty to subcontractor employees | Graves: No duty in tort to subcontractor employees for risks inherent in subcontracted work; contract disclaimer bars third-party claims | Held: Graves assumed a tort duty by contract to comply with safety laws, provide safeguards, and retain supervisory control; summary judgment improper |
| Whether contract disclaimer (no third-party beneficiary) bars tort liability | Bennett: Disclaimer does not negate Graves’s assumed duties to protect workers; duties create tort liability independent of beneficiary status | Graves: Section 107.14 prevents nonparties from suing under the contract, insulating Graves | Held: Disclaimer did not defeat Graves’s assumed tort duty; duties imposed/retained in contract create tort obligations |
| Whether obviousness/integral-risk doctrine bars liability | Graves: Crane hazards alleged are inherent to the job and obvious; prime not liable for such risks to subcontractor employees | Bennett: Contractual duties and the nature of the crane failure (boom shearing) are beyond ordinary, obvious job risks | Held: Court found crane arm shearing is not an obvious integral hazard and contractual duties further distinguish the case; issue for jury on breach/causation |
| Whether factual issues of breach/causation warrant summary judgment | Bennett: Breach and proximate cause are factual questions for trial | Graves: No failure to provide safeguards and no OSHA violations; merits support summary judgment | Held: These contentions concern breach and causation and are factual issues inappropriate for summary judgment; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Construction Advisors, Inc. v. Sherrell, 275 Ark. 183, 628 S.W.2d 309 (prime contractor assumed supervisory and safety-duty obligations; workers were third-party beneficiaries)
- Williams v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., 318 Ark. 452, 886 S.W.2d 586 (no tort duty where contract reserved no right of supervisory control by prime contractor)
- Muskogee Bridge v. Stansell, 311 Ark. 113, 842 S.W.2d 15 (prime contractor’s contract with highway department can create duties to the public despite subcontractor actions)
- Jackson v. Petit Jean Elec. Coop., 270 Ark. 506, 606 S.W.2d 66 (employer not liable for obvious hazards integral to the job)
- Stacks v. Ark. Power & Light Co., 299 Ark. 136, 771 S.W.2d 754 (factual disputes on breach and proximate cause are for the jury)