Ricky Spaulding v. Conopco, 740 F.3d 1187

Background

Ricky Spaulding, an employee of Vac-Con (via temporary assignment from Crown), was hydroblasting at Conopco’s Unilever plant when he slipped from wet railing and fell into Kettle 910, suffering severe injuries; he received workers’ compensation benefits.
Spaulding sued Conopco for negligence, alleging Conopco failed to provide safe access (scaffold/ladder/lift) and failed to warn of the kettle’s danger.
Conopco moved for summary judgment arguing it did not retain substantial control over the jobsite or Vac-Con employees; the district court granted the motion.
Key contested facts: Conopco selected tanks to be cleaned, supplied plant-specific safety rules and annual contractor safety training, and handled lockout/tagout for equipment; Vac-Con controlled hydroblasting methods and supervised Vac-Con employees on site.
The court framed the dispute under Missouri premises-liability law and Matteuzzi’s exception regarding landowner liability for independent-contractor employees (control determines duty).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Conopco retained sufficient control over the jobsite and contractors to owe a duty of ordinary care	Spaulding: Conopco’s safety rules, PJHA walk-throughs, selection of tanks, lockout/tagout responsibility, and other practices show retained control	Conopco: Safety policies and tank selection are routine contract compliance; Vac-Con controlled how work was done and supervised employees	Held: No duty — Conopco did not retain the substantial control required under Matteuzzi; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Conopco voluntarily assumed a duty to provide safety beyond contract obligations	Spaulding: Conopco’s safety measures and interactions amounted to an assumed duty	Conopco: No voluntary undertaking that would create liability absent retained control	Held: No assumed duty; insufficient control or voluntary assumption to impose liability
Whether Conopco had an independent duty to warn invitees (independent-contractor employees) regardless of control	Spaulding: Landowner must warn of dangerous conditions like Kettle 910 even without control	Conopco: Under Missouri law, duty to warn depends on degree of retained control per Matteuzzi and its progeny	Held: No independent duty to warn where landowner did not retain control; failure-to-warn claim fails
Whether testimony about “control” created a genuine factual dispute	Spaulding: Witness testimony (Blessing) that plant owner exercises control raises factual issue	Conopco: Such testimony is legal conclusion and inconsistent with other facts showing Vac-Con control	Held: Court disregarded conclusory testimony; remaining evidence insufficient to create genuine dispute

Key Cases Cited

Matteuzzi v. Columbus P'ship, L.P., 866 S.W.2d 128 (Mo. 1993) (en banc) (landowner relieved of liability when possession and control of premises are relinquished to independent contractor)
Gillespie v. St. Joseph Light & Power Co., 937 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (degree of landowner control, not nature of activity, governs duty to independent-contractor employees)
Smart v. Chrysler Corp., 991 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (general safety policies and occasional oversight insufficient to show retained control)
Werdehausen v. Union Elec. Co., 801 S.W.2d 358 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (ability to stop work for safety concerns does not alone establish retained control)
Lawrence v. Bainbridge Apartments, 919 S.W.2d 566 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (landowner selection of tasks and providing access does not equal control over how work is performed)
Owens v. Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 866 S.W.2d 132 (Mo. 1993) (selection of operational details alone insufficient to impose landowner liability)
Brister v. Ikenberry, 300 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguishable: multiple factors showed significant landowner control)
Stephens v. Crown Equip. Corp., 22 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 1994) (distinguishable: landowner supplied essential work instructions and equipment, creating control)