McCorkle v. North Point Chrysler Jeep, Inc.
208 N.C. App. 711
N.C. Ct. App.2010Background
- Landlord/owner North Point contracted with Landmark as general contractor to build a new dealership facility; Landmark controlled construction, safety, and coordination of work.
- Landmark hired Robey Painting as a subcontractor; Plaintiff was employed by Robey on the project.
- Handrail on a stairway in the new building broke in January 2007, causing Plaintiff to twist his back; the railing was installed by the fabricator and was described as temporary with a brace.
- Plaintiff sued North Point in Guilford County Superior Court (Feb. 2009), alleging North Point failed to keep the site reasonably safe.
- North Point moved for summary judgment on Jan. 13, 2010; the trial court granted the motion with prejudice (Feb. 9, 2010).
- Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment challenging North Point’s duty as landowner and the allocation of responsibility for safety on the site.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff as landowner. | Plaintiff contends North Point as owner owed duty to inspect for hidden dangers. | North Point argues the duty to inspect/have liability does not extend to work performed by independent contractors. | No duty found; liability shifted to contractor; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the duty of reasonable care shifts to the independent contractor when the owner relinquishes control. | Plaintiff asserts ownership retained control and thus owed duty. | Law recognizes exception when contractor controls the work; owner’s control over hazards is key. | Duty shifted to Landmark; owner not liable for hazards incident to the contractor’s work. |
| Whether Cook v. Morrison’s exception applies to this case (work by independent contractor not inherently dangerous). | Cook would not apply; owner liable for site safety. | Cook excludes owner liability for dangers incidental to the independent contractor’s work; not applicable to non-inherently dangerous tasks. | Cook exception not applicable; painting/construction not inherently dangerous; no owner duty. |
| Whether the trial court correctly granted summary judgment given the evidence of owner’s control. | Evidence suggested owner exercised some supervision over site safety. | Contract terms show Landmark had control; owner lacked possession over construction. | Landlord was not in possession/control; duty not owed; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 92 N.C.App. 327, 374 S.E.2d 443 (1988) (independent contractor as lawful visitor; duty of ordinary care to subcontractors)
- Wellmon v. Hickory Constr. Co., 88 N.C.App. 76, 362 S.E.2d 591 (1987) (duty to exercise ordinary care and inspect for hidden dangers)
- Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C.App. 158, 516 S.E.2d 643 (1992) (landowner/contractor duty to inspect; control matters)
- Cook v. Morrison, 105 N.C.App. 509, 413 S.E.2d 922 (1992) (exception to owner’s duty not extending to contractor’s work; not inherently dangerous)
- Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890, 895 (Wyoming 1986) (owner’s lack of control over hazard shifts duty to contractor)
- Smart v. Chrysler Corp., 991 S.W.2d 737, 743 (Mo. Ct. App.1999) (exception if owner relinquishes possession/control during construction; shifts duty to contractor)
- Williams v. Stores Co., 209 N.C. 591, 184 S.E. 496 (1936) (premises liability duty to invitees; broad historical duty context)