292 So.3d 178
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Nijel Young, a Hard Rock Construction laborer, was injured when a trench collapsed while installing 48-inch drainage pipe at East St. John High School. Hard Rock was the contractor; All South Consulting Engineers was the owner's engineer/construction manager.
- Hard Rock had primary control over means, methods, and jobsite safety under its contract with the School Board; All South's contract limited its authority and disclaimed control over safety except in narrow circumstances.
- Evidence showed prior minor cave‑ins that day; foreman requested a trench box, Hard Rock declined, and an All South inspector/project manager visited the site that afternoon. OSHA later cited Hard Rock for a trench violation.
- Young sued Hard Rock and All South; Hard Rock was dismissed after a workers’ compensation ruling. Young alleged All South breached contractual and extra‑contractual duties to protect worker safety.
- All South moved for summary judgment relying on its contract language; the trial court granted judgment for All South, holding All South had no contractual duty for worker safety. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Young's Argument | All South's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether All South owed a contractual duty to protect Young/supervise safety | Contract provisions read together (including 3.3.1, 1.1.9, 14.3.1, 2.3, 2.5) give All South authority/duty to stop unsafe work | Contract explicitly assigns means, methods, and safety to contractor; exceptions in 3.3.1 require written notice from contractor before engineer assumes responsibility | No contractual duty: contract language requires written contractor notice before engineer’s safety authority arises; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether All South owed a noncontractual ("moral"/tort) duty to warn or stop unsafe work | All South had knowledge of dangerous conditions and thus owed a moral/legal duty to warn or stop work | No recognized extra‑contractual duty where contract allocates safety; Yocum’s brief dicta does not create independent tort duty | No independent moral/tort duty recognized; Yocum’s dictum not binding and plaintiff failed to show assumed duty or knowledge sufficient to create tort liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Yocum v. City of Minden, 649 So.2d 129 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1995) (addressed engineer’s contractual limits and briefly discussed, as dicta, a possible "moral duty" to warn)
- Black v. Gorman-Rupp Co., 791 So.2d 793 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (courts must analyze express contract provisions to determine duties between engineer and contractor)
- Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 974 So.2d 635 (La. 2007) (framework for "assumption of duty" and elements required to find affirmative undertaking)
- Bujol v. Entergy Servs., Inc., 922 So.2d 1113 (La. 2004) (inspections or non‑mandatory safety recommendations do not, by themselves, create an affirmative tort duty)