David Duncan v. American Greetings Corporation
754 F.3d 632
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Duncan, Chew, and Hoskins, independent contractors employed by OMLP, were injured when arc flash occurred while reading a transformer at American Greetings' Osceola facility.
- American Greetings' facility had a loose stinger; Griffin, OMLP's electrical manager, directed Duncan's crew to the site.
- Griffin and Collins discussed why the plant hadn't lost power; Collins and Duncan used a 1,000-volt voltmeter on the transformer with its doors open.
- The transformer nameplate showed 13,800 V primary and 4,160 V secondary; due to open doors, plaintiffs couldn't read it before attempting measurement.
- Duncan approached the 4,160-volt transformer with an inadequate voltmeter, causing an arc flash and injuries to plaintiffs.
- Arkansas choice-of-law rules apply; district court granted summary judgment to American Greetings under Petit Jean Electric Co-op.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petit Jean creates a duty for the employer of an independent contractor. | Petit Jean imposes a duty to warn of hidden dangers; she argues American Greetings owed duty. | Petit Jean forecloses a duty to warn or de-energize; no extra duty here. | No duty under Petit Jean; plaintiffs' negligence claims fail. |
| Whether OSHA/regulations create a private duty or augment common-law duty. | OSHA/regulations impose a duty to exercise reasonable care. | Regulations do not create private rights or independent duties; only admissible as evidence. | OSHA/regs do not create an independent duty; no breach-based dispute. |
| Whether American Greetings exercised control over the plaintiffs to impose additional duties. | Control by American Greetings over work conditions implied duties. | No sufficient evidence of control; plaintiffs were under OMLP's supervision. | No control by American Greetings; no additional duty arising. |
| Whether American Greetings owed a duty to warn of latent dangers associated with the transformer’s hazards. | American Greetings should warn about risks inherent to electrical work. | Hazards were obvious; contractor bears ultimate responsibility for safety. | No duty to warn about latent hazards; obvious dangers recognized by plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Petit Jean Electric Co-op. v. Stoltze, 606 S.W.2d 66 (Ark. 1980) (no duty to isolate/de-energize lines; independent contractor duties noted)
- Stoltze v. Ark. Valley Elec. Co-op., 127 S.W.3d 466 (Ark. 2003) (independent contractor duties; control and warning considerations)
- Griffin I, 986 S.W.2d 836 (Ark. 1999) (premises-like duty analysis for independent contractors)
- Griffin II, 76 S.W.3d 254 (Ark. 2002) (latent danger vs. obvious risk; rotting skylight discussion)
- Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., 886 S.W.2d 587 (Ark. 1994) (control-based duty considerations for contractors)
- Crenshaw v. Ark. Warehouse, Inc., 379 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (application of independent contractor duties to hazards)
- Koch Refining Co. v. Chapa, 11 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. 1999) (general contractor duties; permissible restrictions on control)