947 F.3d 506
8th Cir.2020Background:
- McKenzie Electric hired 4T Construction in March 2014 to perform reconductor work on a high-voltage transmission line (Project); the written contract characterized 4T as an "independent contractor" and required 4T to indemnify and hold harmless McKenzie.
- The Project involved three energized phase conductors (to be upsized) and one neutral conductor (to remain 1/0); work orders and staking sheets identified locations and final outcomes but did not prescribe specific methods.
- McKenzie’s on-site role consisted of issuing work orders, providing staking sheets, and periodic inspections by its contractor manager; McKenzie witnesses testified it did not supervise or control 4T’s methods or safety program.
- While replacing a mis-sized neutral conductor on an energized line, apprentice lineman Nicholas Meyer was electrocuted and suffered catastrophic injuries (including amputation and brain damage).
- Meyer sued McKenzie asserting negligence (retained control despite independent-contractor status) and strict liability (ultra-hazardous activity); the district court granted summary judgment for McKenzie, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract interpretation: Was the contract ambiguous or did it clearly designate 4T as an independent contractor? | Meyer: contract was ambiguous/incomplete and shouldn’t foreclose liability. | McKenzie: contract clearly labels 4T an independent contractor who works "without supervision." | Court: contract language is clear and unambiguous — 4T was an independent contractor. |
| Negligence/retained control: Did McKenzie retain sufficient control to be liable for 4T’s work? | Meyer: McKenzie exercised actual control (inspections, work orders) and thus owed duty. | McKenzie: only concerned with finished product; inspections and work orders do not amount to control. | Court: McKenzie did not retain control over methods/manner; periodic inspections and outcome-focused specs insufficient to create liability. |
| Strict liability/abnormally dangerous activity: Is maintenance/replacement of energized high-voltage lines ultra-hazardous so as to impose strict liability? | Meyer: replacement of energized high-voltage transmission lines is abnormally dangerous and warrants strict liability. | McKenzie: Wirth controls — power line operations are not abnormally dangerous; no strict liability. | Court: Followed Wirth — North Dakota does not impose strict liability for high-voltage power line contact; no strict liability here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogstad v. Dakota Gasification Co., 623 N.W.2d 382 (N.D. 2001) (clear contract language governs interpretation)
- Schlenk v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 329 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 1983) (employer not liable for independent contractor unless it retained control)
- Pechtl v. Conoco, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 1997) (general inspection/suggestions do not constitute retained supervisory control)
- Wirth v. Mayrath Indus., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1979) (refused to impose strict liability for contact with high-tension power lines)
- Lumpkin v. Streifel, 308 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1981) (employer concerned only with finished product does not retain control)
- Iverson v. Bronco Drilling Co., 667 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (D.N.D. 2009) (employer liable only when it controls method, manner, and operative details)
- Bishop v. Glazier, 723 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Captiva Lake Invs., LLC v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 883 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2018) (federal courts in diversity cases apply state supreme court decisions)