Gary Lamb v. Mid Indiana Service Company, Inc., B2 Contractors, LLC, C&M Wrecking Inc., and C&M Trucking & Excavating Inc.
19 N.E.3d 792
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Gary Lamb, an employee/foreman for subcontractor Kingdom Electric, was injured when a partially collapsed trench caused a cave-in while installing a CT cabinet on a construction site.
- Mid Indiana Service Co. was the general contractor; its on-site employee/scheduler was John Conarro, who coordinated subcontractors.
- The day before the accident Lamb asked Conarro to delay digging the trench until Lamb installed the CT cabinet; Conarro agreed but the trench was dug anyway.
- On the day of the accident Conarro told Lamb the trench had to be dug because Conarro had other tasks; Lamb proceeded to install the cabinet and was injured when part of the trench collapsed.
- Conarro denied digging the trench or knowing who did, but other evidence could be reasonably construed to show Conarro either dug the trench himself or directed it be dug after Lamb’s request to delay.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mid Indiana; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether Mid Indiana assumed a duty by affirmative conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on negligence | Lamb: Mid Indiana assumed a duty by ordering/causing the trench to be dug after Lamb asked for delay, creating an unreasonable risk | Mid Indiana: As general contractor, owed no duty to supervise independent contractors and thus is not liable | Reversed: factual disputes exist about assumed duty and causation, so summary judgment improper |
| Whether general contractor liability exceptions apply | Lamb: Did not rely on statutory exceptions; instead claims Mid Indiana voluntarily assumed duty | Mid Indiana: No contractual or exception-based duty existed to make it liable | Court: Focused on an assumed-duty theory under which fact issues remain for trial |
| Whether assumption of duty can be shown by conduct | Lamb: Conarro’s actions (or directing digging) constitute affirmative assumption of safety duty | Mid Indiana: Denies responsibility for digging or directing trench work | Court: Assumption of duty via affirmative conduct is recognized; facts here could support such an inference |
| Whether summary judgment standard favors nonmoving party | Lamb: Negligence is fact-sensitive and summary judgment rarely appropriate | Mid Indiana: Sought judgment as a matter of law | Court: Applied standard construing evidence and inferences for nonmoving party; found genuine issues exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheehan Constr. Co., Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 938 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 2010) (summary-judgment standard and appellate review of designated materials)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (summary judgment standard; elements of negligence)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (negligence cases are fact-sensitive; summary judgment rarely appropriate)
- Capitol Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Gray, 959 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (general rule that a general contractor owes no duty to supervise independent contractors; five exceptions)
- Stumpf v. Hagerman Constr. Corp., 863 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (rationale for limited control by general contractor over subcontractor means/methods)
- Hunt Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Garrett, 964 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. 2012) (inquiry: duty under contract and assumed duty voluntarily or gratuitously)
- Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins, 443 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (template for analyzing construction-manager/general-contractor duties)
- Love v. Meyer & Najem Constr., 950 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (assumption of duty by affirmative conduct creates special relationship and duty to act reasonably)