Moore v. SHAWMUT WOODWORKING & SUPPLY, INC.
788 F. Supp. 2d 821
S.D. Ind.2011Background
- This case arises from a February 18, 2009 accident at a Dave & Buster's construction site where Shawmut contracted to construct and PIPE was contracted for plumbing.
- Moore, an employee of PIPE, was injured when his sleeve was caught in a PIPE pipe vise, allegedly due to improper operation and safety practices.
- Pipe personnel allegedly jumped the foot pedal, enabling the vise to operate without a pedal and without stopping, contrary to safety guidelines.
- Shawmut did not have construction workers on site; only management and supervisors were present, but Shawmut held weekly safety meetings, performed inspections, and issued a Safety Ticket to PIPE after the accident.
- Moore filed a negligence complaint in Marion Superior Court on September 10, 2009; Shawmut removed the case to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The court evaluated whether Shawmut owed a duty to Moore, whether it delegated that duty, and whether Shawmut is vicariously liable for PIPE’s negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shawmut owed a duty of care to Moore | Moore argues Shawmut’s contract created a non-delegable duty | Shawmut contends no contractual duty exists or can be delegated | Shawmut owed a non-delegable duty to Moore. |
| Whether Shawmut delegated its duty to PIPE | If Shawmut delegated, PIPE shares liability | Duty cannot be delegated; remains Shawmut’s | Even if joint responsibility exists, Shawmut’s duty is non-delegable; liability not solely PIPE’s. |
| Whether Shawmut is vicariously liable for PIPE’s negligence | Non-delegable duty plus G.C./subcontractor relationship supports vicarious liability | No vicarious liability unless contractually tied as general contractor/subcontractor | Shawmut can be vicariously liable for PIPE’s safety negligence. |
| Whether Shawmut breached its duty and proximate cause exists | Shawmut took steps to ensure site safety but may have erred | Any breach and proximate cause are disputed facts | There is a genuine dispute of material fact on breach and proximate causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stumpf v. Hagerman Constr. Corp., 863 N.E.2d 871 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (contractual duty can create non-delegable duty in construction)
- Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH, 771 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (non-delegable duties limited when control over safety is minimal)
- Harris v. Kettelhut Constr., Inc., 468 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind.Ct.App. 1984) (contractual safety duties can create liability)
- Perryman v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., 628 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (safety duties and review of subcontractor safety programs)
- Teitge v. Remy Construction Company, Inc., 526 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988) (contract language may differ in single-prime-contractor sites; scope matters)
- Hunt Const. Group, Inc. v. Garrett, 938 N.E.2d 794 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (non-delegable duty can yield vicarious liability in GC/subcontractor context)
- Bagley v. Insight Communications Co., 658 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 1995) (public policy supports minimizing injuries in contract-safety duties)