Capitol Construction Services, Inc. v. Gray
959 N.E.2d 294
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Capitol Construction Services, Inc. was general contractor on a Kroger project; All One, Inc. was subcontractor performing electrical installation.
- Clinton Gray, an All One employee, died after falling from an 18-foot ladder while testing electrical lines and lights; Herschel Gant was Capitol’s on-site supervisor.
- The Estate of Clinton Gray filed a negligence action against Capitol in 2008.
- Capitol answered and later filed a third-party complaint against All One alleging breach of contract and indemnification.
- The trial court granted The Estate partial summary judgment on a contractual nondelegable duty of safety; Capitol cross-moved for summary judgment and was denied.
- This Court affirmed the partial summary judgment for The Estate and denied Capitol’s cross-motion, consolidating the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Capitol owed a contractual nondelegable duty of safety to Clinton | Capitol argues it owed no duty to Clinton under contract. | Capitol contends contract language does not create a safety duty for subcontractors' employees. | Capitol owed a contractual nondelegable duty of safety. |
| Whether Capitol delegated its duty to All One via the subcontract | Capitol contends delegation to All One transferred the duty. | Capitol argues the subcontract language delegated safety duties to All One. | The duty was non-delegable; no effective delegation found given contract language and record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stumpf v. Hagerman Constr. Corp., 863 N.E.2d 871 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (establishes nondelegable-duty exceptions and contractor safety obligations)
- Harris v. Kettelhut Constr., Inc., 468 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (contract provisions extending duty to subcontractors’ safety practices)
- Perryman v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., 628 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (contract language affirmatively imposing safety duties on contractor)
- Helms v. Carmel High Sch. Vocational Bldg., 844 N.E.2d 562 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (contract language did not affirmatively evince duty in some contexts)
- Vaughn v. Daniels Co., 841 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind.2006) (addressed whether five nondelegable duties could be transferred; clarified context)
- Bagley v. Insight Commc'ns Co., L.P., 658 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.1995) (nondelegable duties are inherently important to the community)