Presley v. Commercial Moving & Rigging, Inc., 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 437

Presley, a Grimberg foreman, was injured while assisting in assembling eight cooling towers on the State Department building roof.
CRSS operated as a contract compliance consultant under a GSA CQM contract, tasked to monitor safety, inspect, and report, but not to control means or the safety programs.
CRSS inspectors observed safety violations and could stop work in imminent danger, but CRSS did not own the worksite and had limited authority over safety actions.
Presley alleged CRSS owed him a duty of care under ISA or common law due to its monitoring role; the trial court granted JMOL in CRSS’s favor, finding no duty.
The jury found for CMR; Presley and Presley sued CRSS for negligence, with additional evidentiary disputes raised on CMR's behalf.
On appeal, the DC Court of Appeals affirmed, holding CRSS owed no legal duty to Presley under either statutory or common-law theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does CRSS owe Presley a statutory duty under the ISA?	Presley argues CRSS's control over safety creates an ISA employer duty.	CRSS did not own the site or promulgate safety rules; limited monitoring is insufficient.	No ISA duty found for CRSS.
Does CRSS owe Presley a common-law duty arising from the CQM contract?	CRSS undertook to monitor safety and thus should exercise reasonable care for workers.	Contract limitations and lack of privity/prevalent control negate a duty to Presley.	No common-law duty found; contract undertakings did not create a duty to Presley.
Were the accident report and impeachment evidence properly admitted or excluded?	Accident report and certain interview statements could be admitted to support Presley’s claims.	Reports are hearsay and impeachment material was improperly used.	Accident report excluded as hearsay; impeachment evidence properly admitted with limiting instructions; no reversible error.
Was the evidentiary handling and jury instructions error-free for purposes of reversal?	Immediate limiting instruction on impeachment should have been given; other portions of Poole interview should be admitted.	Any limitation errors were harmless in light of final curative instructions and record.	Any error was harmless; no reversal based on evidentiary handling or jury instructions.

Traudt v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 692 A.2d 1326 (D.C. 1997) (ownership/control to define ISA employer duty)
Velásquez v. Essex Condominium Ass'n, 759 A.2d 676 (D.C. 2000) (contractual authority and control over safety as ISA factor)
Haynesworth v. D.H. Stevens Co., 645 A.2d 1095 (D.C. 1994) (duty arising under RESTATEMENT §324A for third-party protection)
Caldwell v. Bechtel, Inc., 203 U.S. App. D.C. 407 (D.C. 1980) (contractual undertaking and duty to third parties in negligence)
Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 572 A.2d 1121 (D.C. 1990) (construction manager duty to supervise and enforce safety)
Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (duty to foreseeability of plaintiffs in contract-based safety context)
Sec. Nat'l Bank v. Lish, 311 A.2d 833 (D.C. 1973) (general principles on duty and juries)
Ceco Corp. v. Coleman, 441 A.2d 940 (D.C. 1982) (limitations on duty under completeness rule and multi-party fault)