Shawnee Construction & Engineering, Inc. v. Stanley
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1717
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Omnisource hired Shawnee as general contractor for a Fort Wayne renovation.
- Schust, a Schust Co. subcontractor, performed roofing/sheet metal work; Stanley, a Schust employee, was injured descending a ladder on May 22, 2007.
- Shawnee sought summary judgment arguing no duty to Stanley; Stanley sought partial summary judgment asserting a non-delegable duty.
- The Subcontract Agreement and Omnisource's Contractor Policy contained provisions asserting safety responsibilities and the right to fine subcontractors, but the trial court inferred a duty from these terms.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held the contractual language did not evidences a duty of care, reversed the trial court, and remanded for entry of Shawnee’s summary judgment.
- The result is that Shawnee did not contractually assume a duty to Stanley’s employer’s employees, and Stanley’s negligence claim fails as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Contractor Policy and Subcontract Agreement evince a duty of care? | Stanley contends the policy and agreement show a contractual duty. | Shawnee argues the contracts do not clearly create a specific duty. | No contractually evidenced duty; no non-delegable duty assumed. |
| Does absence of signed Contractor Policy defeat the duty analysis? | Stanley relies on the contract terms despite lack of signed copy. | Shawnee contends lack of execution undermines reliance on policy terms. | Execution issue not fatal to the duty analysis; even taken, terms do not show intent to assume duty. |
| Are these contracts enough to override general rule that general contractors are not liable for subcontractor negligence? | Stanley argues five-contractual contexts create a non-delegable duty. | Shawnee argues five exceptions require explicit duty, which these do not establish. | Contract language does not satisfy the non-delegable-duty exceptions; no liability导. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Cerestar U.S.A., Inc., 775 N.E.2d 360 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (contract language must affirmatively evince a duty of care; mere safety rules not enough)
- Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH, 771 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (contractual safety provisions must show intent to assume OSHA-related duties; not enough to imply duty)
- Stumpf v. Hagerman Construction Corp., 863 N.E.2d 871 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (specific contract language creating duty to supervise safety to employees of others may establish duty)
- Perryman v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., 628 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (safety-management contract language can create a duty if clearly intended to charge general contractor with safety of project employees)