Thompson v. Pham, 1 CA-CV 20-0655

In 2014 Justin Thompson (then 15) lived in an apartment managed by Danny Pham and related entities; Pham hired Silver Star Heating & Cooling and technician Natan Chiriac to repair the unit.
Chiriac asked Thompson to assist in the attic and directed him to walk outside the attic's weight-bearing structures; Thompson fell through an unreinforced portion of the attic floor and injured his wrist.
Thompson sued Pham and the management entities, asserting vicarious liability for the independent contractor's negligence under the nondelegable-duty doctrine (invoking Restatement § 422).
The superior court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no evidence that defendants violated a nondelegable duty to make and keep the premises safe or that the injury was caused by an unsafe condition of the structure.
Thompson filed a Rule 59 motion to vacate/amend the judgment, which the court denied (stating Rule 59 applies to jury trials and for the reasons supporting summary judgment).
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Thompson’s injury resulted from contractor negligence in performance/instruction rather than an unsafe structural condition subjecting defendants to vicarious liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants are vicariously liable under the nondelegable-duty / Restatement §422 for contractor's negligence	Thompson: §422 makes owner liable for contractor’s work on a structure; Chiriac’s conduct made the property unsafe so defendants are liable	Defendants: §422 applies only where injury is caused by an unsafe condition of the structure or failure to maintain it; here injury arose from contractor’s negligent instruction, not a structural defect	Court: Summary judgment affirmed — no evidence the injury was caused by an unsafe structural condition or a failure to maintain premises safe under §422
Whether summary judgment violated Arizona Constitution Art. 2 §31 (limiting damages)	Thompson: granting summary judgment restricts recovery and conflicts with Art. 2 §31	Defendants: summary judgment is procedural, not an enacted law limiting damages	Court: Art. 2 §31 not implicated because the constitutional provision bars enacted limits on damages, not judicial summary judgment
Whether denial of Thompson’s Rule 59 motion was an abuse of discretion	Thompson: Rule 59 applies to motions for new trial even without a trial; court erred to deny on that basis	Defendants: Even if Rule 59 applies, denial was supported by the merits of summary judgment	Court: Court erred in saying Rule 59 only applies to trials but denial was otherwise supported by the summary judgment grounds; no abuse of discretion

Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236 (2003) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo, view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. P’ship v. Kelly, 166 Ariz. 96 (1990) (discusses nondelegable duty and limits on owner liability for independent contractor negligence)
Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc., 140 Ariz. 420 (1984) (adopts Restatement § 422 regarding possessor liability for contractor work on structures)
O'Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 191 Ariz. 535 (1998) (interpreting Article 2 §31 as limiting enacted laws that cap damages)
Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 236 Ariz. 511 (2015) (Rule 59 motions may apply even absent a trial)
Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159 (1978) (appellate deference to trial court new-trial orders if any cited ground justifies the order)