Curtis Pinson v. 45 Development
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13175
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Curtis Pinson, a licensed master sign electrician employed by Anchor Sign, fell through the vinyl soffit of a storefront entrance canopy while installing a sign at a shopping center owned by 45 Development, sustaining severe injuries.
- The canopy had no access panel; its soffit was not weight-bearing and was supported by metal joists. Pinson admitted he knew the soffit would not support weight and balanced a ladder on a loose board across the joists before falling.
- Anchor Sign had surveyed the site beforehand; safety equipment (harnesses, alternative lifts) was available from Anchor Sign, and Pinson had fall-prevention training and significant experience working at heights.
- Pinson sued 45 Development (and others) asserting negligence and absolute liability; the district court denied his fifth motion to amend the complaint as untimely and granted summary judgment for 45 Development. Pinson appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion and granted summary judgment de novo, applying Arkansas substantive law to determine whether 45 Development owed a duty to Pinson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying Pinson leave to amend (filed >3 months after scheduling deadline) | Amendment narrowed claims and added newly discovered facts; leave should be allowed | Motion was untimely with no adequate explanation after discovery closed and amendment deadline passed | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether 45 Development owed a duty to Pinson as a business invitee despite open-and-obvious hazard | Can invoke "obvious danger" exception because invitee forced to encounter hazard to do job; canopy design posed an unreasonable risk | Canopy hazard was open and obvious; Pinson could avoid risk or obtain equipment; no duty to anticipate his chosen method | Exception did not apply; hazard was open and obvious, so no duty owed |
| Whether landowner owed duty to employee of independent contractor re: obvious, job-integral hazards | OSHA/other safety codes show a breached standard of care by owner | Owner has no duty to warn of obvious hazards integral to contractor’s work; independent contractor best positioned to assess risks | 45 Development had no duty to warn; Pinson was an independent contractor employee and hazard was integral to his work |
| Whether OSHA/industry codes establish an independent standard of care creating liability for 45 Development | OSHA, IBC, NESC violations demonstrate negligence and applicable standard of care | OSHA does not create a private right or expand common-law duties; Arkansas courts reluctant to allow statutes/regulations to expand tort duties absent clear intent | Codes/OSHA did not create an independent duty for 45 Development; such violations not dispositive to create duty at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Knoth v. Smith & Nephew Richards, 195 F.3d 355 (8th Cir. 1999) (district courts may set and enforce amendment deadlines)
- Argenyi v. Creighton Univ., 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Curtis Lumber Co., Inc. v. La. Pac. Corp., 618 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2010) (choice-of-law/applying state substantive law in diversity cases)
- Yanmar Co., Ltd. v. Slater, 386 S.W.3d 439 (Ark. 2012) (elements of negligence under Arkansas law)
- Jenkins v. Int'l Paper Co., 887 S.W.2d 300 (Ark. 1994) (exception to open-and-obvious rule where landowner should anticipate unreasonable risk)
- Jackson v. Petit Jean Elec. Co-op, 606 S.W.2d 66 (Ark. 1980) (no duty to warn independent contractor of obvious, integral hazards)
- D.B. Griffin Warehouse, Inc. v. Sanders, 76 S.W.3d 254 (Ark. 2002) (duty questions are legal; owner not liable for obvious, integral hazards)
- Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009) (OSHA does not create a private cause of action or generally expand common-law duties)