Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Horizon Natl. Contract Servs., L.L.C.
2012 Ohio 1841
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Hach slipped on a puddle of wet wax at Giant Eagle, Richfield, during a 4:00 a.m. floor-waxing/cleaning operation on Aug 24, 2007.
- Giant Eagle, as a self-insured employer, paid more than $25,000 in response to Hach’s workers’ compensation claim.
- Hach and Giant Eagle sued Horizon National Contract Services, LLC, alleging negligent creation of a dangerous condition, failure to warn, and improper hiring/training.
- Horizon admitted a contract to provide floor-cleaning services but argued it was not liable due to independent contractor status of Premier Image Enterprises, LLC.
- The trial court granted Horizon’s summary-judgment motion, relying on Horizon’s claim that Premier performed the cleaning at the Richfield store; Plaintiffs challenged the evidence and the subcontracting basis.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact about who was performing the janitorial work and whether Horizon owed a duty under the contract or tort law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who performed janitorial services at the Richfield store on the date of Hach’s fall | Premier employed/operated at the store; Horizon not liable | Premier performed under Horizon contract; Horizon not liable as independent contractor | Genuine issue of material fact; reversal and remand for trial on subcontractor identity |
| Whether Horizon owed a duty to Hach and whether it can be liable under non-delegable or contract-based duties | Horizon liable due to contract or non-delegable duty; foreseeability of harm | If Premier, an independent contractor, performed, Horizon not liable; duty depends on relationship | Issue for trial; prior summary judgment reversed due to unresolved questions of control and duty |
| Whether Horizon’s status as contractor vs independent contractor governs liability | If Horizon controlled the work or had non-delegable duties, liable | Independent contractor relationship absolves Horizon of liability | Question of fact; not entitled to summary judgment on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Pusey v. Bator, 94 Ohio St.3d 275 (2002) (general rule: employer not liable for contractor’s acts; nondelegable duties may apply in some contexts)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (duty depends on relationship and foreseeability; delegable vs non-delegable duties)
- Emrich v. Grady Mem. Hosp., 2004-Ohio-6753 (5th Dist.) (janitorial duties; cleaning not inherently dangerous; standard of care varies by relationship)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (2009) (negligence elements; foreseeability and duty considerations in premises cases)
- Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 272 (1983) (contract-based tort distinctions; breach of contract not a tort absent special relationship)