Troy McCormick and Lynn McCormick v. Nikkel & Associates, Inc. D/B/A NAI Electrical Contractors, a Corporation
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 54
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Little Sioux Corn Processors expanded its ethanol plant with electrical upgrades; Nikkei & Associates performed terminations on switchgear under subcontract.
- switchgears and fault indicators were purchased; holes for fault indicators were too small, prompting a plan to drill or modify brackets.
- Nikkei left the site after securing the switchgear cabinets with penta-head bolts; shelves bore high-voltage warnings.
- Six days later, Little Sioux employee McCormick was injured while assisting with bracket installation; the site allegedly lacked proper deenergization.
- OSHA and Little Sioux safety rules required deenergizing and lockout/tagout before work; Little Sioux employees did not follow these procedures on the injury day.
- Nikkei argued no duty to McCormick because it no longer controlled the switchgear; district court granted summary judgment for Nikkei; court of appeals reversed; supreme court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General duty arising from control transfer | McCormick argues Nikkei created risk and owed duty via retained/ transferred control. | Nikkei contends no general duty once control is transferred to Little Sioux. | No general duty owed by Nikkei. |
| Assumed duty by Konwinski's affidavit | Affidavit could create an assumed duty delaying discharge of duty. | No assumed duty; Nikkei did not undertake to warn or perform the task. | Assumed duty not established; no additional duty imposing liability. |
| Duty under Restatement Second § 384 | Section 384 imposes liability for dangerous conditions during work by the contractor. | Section 384 applies only while work is in the contractor’s charge; here control was transferred. | Nikkei owed no special duty under § 384. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (duty determination is a matter of law; foreseeability for breach/scope left to factfinder)
- Van Fossen v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 777 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa 2009) (retained control and no general duty rule for independent-contractor scenarios)
- Robinson v. Poured Walls of Iowa, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 1996) (special duties based on possession/control; general duty not addressed there)
- Kragel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 1995) (duty when contractor creates dangerous condition in snow/ice; distinction from transfer of control)
- Downs v. A & H Constr., Ltd., 481 N.W.2d 520 (Iowa 1992) (contractor owed no special duty to subcontractor employee under certain Restatement sections)
- Hoffnagle v. McDonald’s Corp., 522 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 1994) (franchisor’s duty depends on retained control over premises and operations)
- Van Essen v. McCormick Enters. Co., 599 N.W.2d 716 (Iowa 1999) (landlord not liable where control of grain bin transferred away)