55 N.E.3d 340
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael Ryan, an employee of Romines (sub-subcontractor), fell from a ladder while removing ductwork at a Gander Mountain construction site and sued the design-builder/general contractor TCI and intermediate subcontractor Craft.
- TCI contracted with the owner under DBIA standard forms (DBIA Doc. Nos. 530 & 535); TCI’s contract stated it "recognizes the importance" of safety, "assumes responsibility for implementing and monitoring all safety precautions and programs," and must designate a Safety Representative to "supervise the implementation and monitoring" of those programs.
- TCI’s subcontract with Craft expressly made Craft responsible for the protection and safety of its employees; Craft’s subcontract with Romines required Romines to take reasonable safety precautions and comply with Craft’s safety measures and applicable laws.
- Ryan moved for partial summary judgment, arguing TCI had contracted to assume a non-delegable duty of care to subcontractor employees; TCI moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no such duty.
- The trial court denied Ryan’s motion and granted TCI’s summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed, concluding TCI’s contract language did not specifically assume a non-delegable duty to ensure subcontractor employee safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCI owed a non-delegable contractual duty of care to subcontractor employees | Ryan: DBIA contract language (assume responsibility for implementing and monitoring safety; designate Safety Representative) manifests intent to assume a non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace | TCI: Language only recognizes importance of safety and limits TCI to supervising implementation/monitoring; primary safety obligations were allocated to subcontractors | Held: No duty — contract language does not affirmatively and specifically impose a non-delegable duty to ensure subcontractor employees’ safety |
| Whether contract language requiring designation of Safety Representative creates a duty to prevent accidents | Ryan: designation plus oversight duties implies responsibility to prevent accidents | TCI: Representative is to supervise implementation (not personally implement); supervision language indicates subcontractors retain primary responsibility | Held: Court viewed the Safety Representative’s role as supervisory and not equivalent to Stumpf‑style mandatory preventive duty |
| Whether general principles (Stumpf/Capitol line) require imposing liability when a contractor agrees to comply with safety laws and supervise safety programs | Ryan: analogized DBIA language to cases finding duties when contractor agreed to take precautions and designate accident‑prevention officer | TCI: distinctions in wording matter; DBIA form here uses different, less‑directive phrasing than cases imposing duty | Held: Court distinguished prior precedents (Stumpf/Capitol) and found the DBIA language closer to Helms/Shawnee, which did not impose a non-delegable duty |
| Whether summary judgment on duty was appropriate as a matter of law | Ryan: disputed intent and scope require factfinder | TCI: contract unambiguously does not assume the specific duty; no triable issue on duty | Held: Affirmed summary judgment for TCI — as a matter of law no duty existed, so no negligence claim against TCI could proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stumpf v. Hagerman Constr. Corp., 863 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (contract requiring contractor to take precautions for employee safety and designate accident‑prevention officer can create non‑delegable duty)
- Capitol Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Gray, 959 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (contract language requiring contractor to take precautions and assume responsibility for subcontractor safety can evince intent to assume duty of care)
- Perryman v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., 628 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (similar principle that clear contractual assumption of safety duties can impose liability)
- Helms v. Carmel High Sch. Vocational Bldg., 844 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (contract language requiring compliance with laws does not by itself evince intent to assume a general duty to provide a safe workplace)
- Shawnee Constr. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Stanley, 962 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (when contract and subcontract allocate sole safety responsibility to subcontractor, general contractor does not assume duty to ensure safety)