Gonzalez v. Mat Const
1 CA-CV 16-0064
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Tucker owned the lot and operated MAT Construction; MAT was general contractor and also performed the concrete/form work. Lone Wolfe was hired as a subcontractor to lath and stucco; Gonzalez was Lone Wolfe’s employee.
- MAT/Tucker excavated trenches and installed form boards for exterior patio footings; after the concrete cured, form boards were removed leaving cavities that were only partially backfilled and not properly compacted.
- While on scaffolding placed on the back patio to lath the house, Gonzalez alleged a scaffold leg sank into the loose soil at the former form location, the scaffold shifted, and he fell, suffering permanent injury.
- Gonzalez sued MAT (general contractor) and Tucker (landowner) for negligence, asserting defendants created an unsafe soil condition and failed to warn.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for MAT and Tucker, finding no duty because defendants did not retain control over Gonzalez’s work and had not created a dangerous condition; Gonzalez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether general contractor (MAT) owed duty to subcontractor employee to provide safe workplace/warn of nonobvious hazards | Gonzalez: MAT created/altered unstable soil and failed to warn or safely backfill, so MAT had duty and breached it | MAT: any duty requires retained control over Lone Wolfe’s work; otherwise no liability | Court: MAT, as general contractor and concrete contractor, had duty to keep site safe and warn; genuine factual dispute on breach precluded summary judgment |
| Whether landowner (Tucker) owed duty to subcontractor employee where landowner allegedly created unsafe condition | Gonzalez: Tucker personally participated in/inspected work, created the unstable condition and failed to warn | Tucker: general rule absolves landowner absent retained control or concealed defect; no retained control here | Court: Exceptions apply; evidence Tucker participated in/retained some control and may have created unsafe condition — jury question under Restatement §414 |
| Whether retained control principle (Restatement §414) bars negligence where owner/GC supervised/inspected but did not direct work | Gonzalez: retained control need not be wholesale; participation and supervision can suffice to trigger §414 duties | Defendants: mere presence/inspection insufficient to trigger retained-control liability (relying on Lee) | Court: factual dispute whether Tucker retained control over actual work; Lee distinguished — summary judgment improper |
| Whether summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff’s evidence on site condition and causation is contested | Gonzalez: deposition, declaration, and expert show soil was disturbed and not compacted, causing scaffold failure | Defendants: argue lack of evidence of control/breach and that plaintiff’s account is inconsistent | Court: view facts in plaintiff’s favor; evidence raised genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis N.J. v. Riebe Enters., Inc., 170 Ariz. 384 (general contractor owes duty to provide reasonably safe place and warn of nonobvious dangers)
- Welker v. Kennecott, 1 Ariz. App. 395 (landowner generally not liable to independent contractor’s employees absent concealed defects or retained control)
- Lee v. M. and H. Enters., 237 Ariz. 172 (to trigger §414 liability owner must retain control over the actual work performed)
- Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236 (summary judgment review standard; view evidence and inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- McMurty v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 231 Ariz. 244 (elements of negligence claim and duty analysis)