Carie v. PSI Energy, Inc.

again that he can prove this Court n of others. with the interests entrusted is, therefore, W. that John

It ordered prac- hereby suspended from the

Brooks is (9) months, period of nine

tice of law for a 7,1998. the conclusion of

beginning June At suspension, respondent period of

this reinstatement

may petition this Court for Discipline Rule

pursuant to Admission and

23, Section 4. is directed to

The Clerk of Court of this order in accordance

provide notice 23(3)(d) provide and to

with Admis.Disc.R. Court of

the Clerk of the United States Circuit,

Appeals the Clerk of for the Seventh of the Federal District Courts

each

state, of the United and the Clerk States

Bankruptcy in this state with the last Court respondent as reflected

known address records of the Clerk. proceeding are assessed

Costs of this respondent.

against the Harper, and Al

Harold CARIE

Appellants-Plaintiffs, ENERGY, INC., Appellee-Defendant.

No. 83A01-9707-CV-229. Appeals of

Court of Indiana.

April

Rehearing Denied June Williams,

Stephen Firm, L. Law Mann Haute, Ledford, Vincennes, Terre Paul B. Appellants-Plaintiffs. Wall, Drummy,

William W. John C. Wil- kinson Goeller Modesitt Wilkinson Drum- & Haute, my, Cavanaugh, Terre Eric M. Ciner- Services, Inc., gy Plainfield, for Appellee- Defendant.

OPINION KIRSCH, Judge. appeal,

In this consolidated Harold Carie Harper and A1 challenge the trial court’s grant summary judgment in favor of PSI Energy, Inc. Carie and were em- Blount, Inc., ployees con- tractor PSI hired to maintenance Cayuga work at Generating Station. They injured performing while mainte- piece equipment nance work on a of PSI’s known as an exhauster. Carie and review, raise several issues for our the fol- lowing dispositive of which appeal: are of this I. relationship Whether PSPs Blount was one of contractee/inde- developed a fixture make the exhaus- so to render pendent contractor efficient. ter maintenance more This general rule that contractee removing 5,200-pound means for was the not liable for so covers of exhausters that maintenance applicable performed. process The removal could be PSI. bolting the fixture to the cover and involved PSI II. Blount contracted with Whether by the detaching the cover from exhauster dangerous perform intrinsically to fixture, cover, securing the with the attached subject liability work so as to PSI to a forklift. The forklift would then be to exceptions under one of the the cover the ex- operated to remove from general rule. the fixture not self- hauster. Because particular project which III. Whether the placed position supporting, it in a employees performing Blount were it off allowing for to be tied to an overhead the at time of and tying off be ac- structure. Until the could probabili- it injuries carried with the support complished, the forklift was the ty unless due for the and attached cover. subject to PSI to was taken so as eventually began employ to contrac- PSI liability the under another one of and, in perform to the maintenance work tors rule. August of the to Blount. awarded work reverse. We Timothy Weiss a foreman for Blount and was charge at the was of the maintenance AND FACTS PROCEDURAL HISTORY Cayuga Generating September of Station into a August PSI entered On awarding Prior to the work to 1991. PSI’s ser- with Blount for maintenance contract PSI, Blount, performed Weiss work at had generating The con- vices at stations. A including removing the exhauster covers. the provided tract that Blount “shall have the employee Weiss how to PSI told providé obligation working a safe environ- procedure. Supplemental removal employees its and shall ment for [Blount] performed the at 469. Weiss had Record safety maintain its own standards. [Blount] experience procedure several times and had safe shall ensure that follow removing cover from each one of the the practices.” The con- work 30. Record knew, in- Weiss twelve exhausters. required comply “all tract also work- his maintenance crew who was formed laws, ordinances, regula- applicable rules and exhausters, that fixture with ing on the tions, including provisions Occupation- attached it was not the exhauster cover Act[,]” Safety by al and Health and to “abide self-supporting. Supplemental Record may any and all have in effect rules 433-34. put into effect at the site of hereafter September On handling pertaining to ... Work part performing of Weiss’s crew were Equipment1_” Record The on 1-A. maintenance work Exhauster Cayuga Generating generates Station removing began procedure crew electricity by pulverized means of coal. Once fixture and cover from the exhauster. The pulverized, coal is it is moved into ex- to a forklift the attached cover secured An is a fan-like hausters. exhauster massive by operated by. Kenneth owned PSI and blades, apparatus eight which re- Richmond, contains employee. Rich- another Blount sembling paddle steamboat’s wheel. up four or backed forklift about mond the coal the boilers exhausters distribute when five feet it stalled. generate electricity. malfunctioning of a PSI forklift time, reported Ac- typically supervisor. main- to a PSI

At one its own time, with which During cordingly, on the when the forklift tenance exhausters. necessary transpor- ing "Equipment” as and facilities for is defined in the contract vehicles tools, supplies "Collectively, apparatus equip- furnished tation of materials all the Contract, by necessary complete includ- PSI.” Record [Blount] ment stalled, working dispute Weiss crew was told factual and which be determined Weiss’s alone, it, Arnold, it don’t touch a matter law. Sizemore v. people his “to leave somebody it,” (Ind.Ct.App.1995). get to fix When go go I’ll tell —I’ll reviewing summary judgment a decision Supplemental scene. on left Weiss motion, applies court same standard at 440. PSI mechanics came to the Record Wickey Sparks, as does the trial court. the forklift. The me- scene and examined (Ind.Ct.App.1994), problem trans. what chanics told Richmond (1995). Thus, denied we are not bound operate on how and instructed him findings and conclusions entered stalling. forklift to Richmond restart- avoid trial when ruling court a motion for sum- up eight forklift another ed the and backed mary judgment upon as we base our decision feet. set the fixture with to ten He then 56(C) properly pre- the Trial Rule materials on the floor. He left the cover attached Campbell Spade, sented to the trial v. court. until forks inserted into the fixture another (Ind.Ct.App.1993). 617 N.E.2d 582-83 employee approached in another fork- Summary judgment if granted shall be by pass lift and could not Richmond’s forklift. designated evidentiary matter demonstrates told, been and Richmond had not did not genuine that is no any there issue as to know, otherwise that the fixture was not self- party moving material fact and that the is supporting.2 up then Richmond backed his judgment entitled to as a of matter law. forklift, fixture, removing from the the forks 56(C); Wickey, Rule Ind.Trial fixture, leaving free-standing. it The with determining summary judg- 265. In whether cover, on the attached exhauster fell Carie ment appropriate, is all facts and reasonable Harper resulting inju- serious and their against inferences must be construed ries. moving party. Wickey, 642 N.E.2d separate Carie and filed com- Carie and claim against PSI PSI, plaints against alleging each that his negligence. sounds in negligence The tort of injuries were the of PSI’s result carelessness 1) duty consists of the a following elements: negligence. and The two cases were consoli- 2) defendant; plaintiff by owed to the a dated the trial court. PSI filed a motion defendant; 3) duty by breach of that and summary judgment, contending for that un- injury plaintiff proximately to the by caused der the rule of contractee nonliabili- that breach. Id. A defendant obtain ty, duty it owed no to the of an judgment summary negligence by in a action it contractor and that was not demonstrating undisputed that the material any exceptions. liable under of rule’s negate plain facts at least element one granted The trial court PSI’s motion on the tiffs claim that the claim is barred an ground duty not PSI did owe a to Carie Grubbs, Goldsberry affirmative defense. v. Harper. Harper appeal. and Carie 475, 477 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). AND DISCUSSION DECISION duty.3 The element at issue here is purpose summary judgment Generally, is to a is for contractee not liable litigation negligence end about there can be no of an contractor. designated regarding judgment evidence conflicts tlement matter as a of law. Ind.Tri- 56(C). was a Richmond member of Weiss’s question duty generally al Rule is material, however, crew. This fact is be- Thus, legal Wickey, one. 642 N.E.2d at 265. undisputed cause it is that Richmond was un- PSI, moving party, as the had the burden of self-supporting. aware fixture was not matter, establishing legal as a not a factual mat- ter, judgment that it was entitled as matter 3. PSI Carie contends that duty of law no because owed to Carie and arguments concerning duty waived all of their Harper. Whether PSI satisfied this is burden arguments because the substance of 'their made regard without determined to the existence of appeal were not included in either their con- any genuine designated by issues of material fact designation tentions of or in their flarper. Accordingly, Har- material issues of fact submitted trial per’s any duty failure include theories in their summary judgment, court. To obtain a the mov- allegations factual does not result waiver. ing party must establish not the absence of genuine fact, issues of material but also its enti- Co., L.P., control, Generally, degree purposes Insight Bagley v. Communications (Ind.1995); determining contractee/indepen- Prest-O- whether a .2d N.E Skeel, 593, 597, employer/employee an re 182 Ind. 106 N.E. dent Lite v.Co. exists, (1914). imposed, lationship is in terms of A will be assessed See, Cummings however, e.g., contract documents. v. exceptions if of five one Inc., nonliability Properties, Hoosier Marine of eontractee exists. Ind. rule 379-81, App. 1272-73 are: Those denied; (1977), Peabody trans. Hale v. Coal “(1) per- requires the contract where Co., 340-41, Ind.App. 336, intrinsically dangerous formance of (1976); Indianapolis Jones Power work; Co., 676, 683-84, Light & (2) principal by law or con- where the (1973), 342-43 trans. denied. spe- charged performing tract whole, The contract considered as duty; cific paragraphs. sentences or isolated Prest-O- (3) nuisance; the act will create a where Lite, 597-98, N.E. at 182 Ind. (4) performed the act to where probably cause to others unless spe The contract case taken; precaution is due provides indepen cifically Blount was (5) personnel dent contractor and that all of its the act to be is ille- where assigned to work under the contract its

gal.” (Section 202.1). employees. Record at 28 exceptions at Bagley, 658 N.E.2d 586. These contractually obligated Blount was While to part of non-delegable create duties on the by any may have in “abide and all rules PSI independent one Id. at hiring contractor. pertaining ... at the site effect of the Work 588. safety,” contractually ... to Blount was also Relationship I. Blount between PSI and “provide working to obligated a safe environ employees[,]” “maintain ment for its its general apply, For the rule the relation- standards[,]” safety “ensure and to own ship PSI and Blount must be that between practices.” follow safe work PSI as and Blount as eontractee (Section 207.1). at had Record 30 PSI the however, If, acting contractor. Blount was right “deny access to or contractual direct not but as as an to remove from the location [Blount] employee, general then the rule and its personnel any ... of the Work Contractor’s apply, do and PSI attendant not working or under then scheduled to work vicariously for Blount’s be held liable (Section 211.1). Record Contract.” at 34 negligence. contract, however, nothing in There is The terms of the written contract between power any be confer that can construed to designate PSI Blount Blount as an inde- to control Blount’s work. PSI (Section pendent at 28 contractor. Record 202.1). Nonetheless, Harper con- Carie and evaluating the contract addition con- eontractee/independent tend that documents, given consideration is con relationship destroyed tractor was because entity to employing determine duct PSI retained control over the instrumentali- whether it has control over con assumed ties procedures Blount used Ind.App. work. at tractor’s process. According removal to Carie and 1272-73; Jones, 380-81, 363 N.E.2d at relationship Harper, the destruction of this Ind.App. at 304 N.E.2d at 343. “The nonlia- renders the rule of eontractee enable control must be such as would bility inapplicable. method of work landowner oversee the must Harper’s employed. It be a control would essence Carie and PSI, given rise to argument regard by its the common-law have in this is that under conduct, respondeat superior.” Cum assumed control over the manner doctrine Ind.App. N.E.2d at perform mings, 173 at and means which Blount was to is no that PSI exer- work on exhausters. 1272. There evidence maintenance require work. performance control over Blount’s While did not cised>such of intrinsi . gave regard- cally Blount technical direction dangerous work The contract defined ing using the fixture to remove the exhauster “Generating the ‘Work” as Station Mainte covers, given such was as an initial direction nance Services on a Contract basis.” Record gave directions, 200.1.4). the initial (Section matter. Once PSI at nothing There is supervisory it did control over intrinsically dangerous generating about sta performance procedure. Blount maintenance itself. Nowhere experienced was Weiss foreman who in- provisions in the contract direct Blount supervised employees. structed and any specific perform toed use method when decision-making authority While PSI had the ing its maintenance services. at 37- Record component parts as to whether exhauster any requirements Absent contractual replaced, responsibility per- for work, dangerous intrinsically PSI is forming replacement solely such rested Harper’s injuries liable Carie and Blount. We conclude that Blount’s Hale, exception. under this See 168 Ind. relationship was one of contractee and inde- . App. at (emphasizing pendent contractor. intrinsically require contract must dan work); Jones, gerous conclusion, Ind.App. at Given this rule of (same). at 344 nonliability contractee would render PSI not negligence employ liable for the of Blount’s Second, excep- PSI is not liable under this ees which resulted tion because the accident caused If, injuries. Bagley, See collateral of others. Cum- See however, exceptions apply, one of the rule’s mings, then PSI owed a to Carie and (negligent failure shore and brace delegated which could not be to Blount. See sewer trenches was collateral to risk created (exceptions “specific, id. at 588 are limited by digging liability trenches thus precluding in situations which associated duties are contractee); Jones, against Ind.App. 158 at non-delegable” public considered because of (fellow 686-87, employees’ 304 N.E.2d at 344 concerns); policy Perry v. Northern Indiana manipulation circyitry of override made elec- (Ind.Ct. Co., 44, Pub. 47 Serv. 433 N.E.2d dangerous, operation tric hoist not of hoist App.1982) (exceptions delegated not be itself). car The fixture with the attached independent contractor), trans. denied. employee, cover fell because a Blount who Exception II. One—Performance of had not been told that fixture would not Intrinsically Dangerous Work itself, support supports. removed forklift Harper Carie argue and that PSI duty them a exception owed under the first finally, PSI is not hable Third general exception This rule. holds a exception precau under proper because negligence contractee hable for the of its during not tions were taken the cover remov if the contract re process. al concept This has into the evolved quires performance intrinsically of dan following instrumentality statement: “An gerous Ind.App. work. 173 at undertaking intrinsically is not dangerous if 385, (listing 363 1274 N.E.2d at the five the ‘risk of can involved its use be rule). isWork intrinsi significantly taking eliminated reduced cally dangerous danger if “the exists in the ” proper precautions.’ Perry, 433 N.E.2d at doing regardless the activity of the method Hale, 343, 47 (quoting Ind.App. at Id. used.” at 322). original N.E.2d at for source risk is accomplishment “intrinsic to the Michigan idea is Denneau v. Indiana & task and not simply, danger arising from Co., Elec. 150 Ind.App. 277 N.E.2d 8 casual or collateral of others.” (1971), in which this court held Id. intrinsically dangerous work exception was PSI is not liable to applicable because evidence “rein under this exception precau for if proper several reasons. the inference that force[d] First, the contract between and Blount tions taken there would be little risk of precaution] excep- focus of the [due at 12. The “the 277 N.E.2d Id. at injury.” ... the character of the risk of prop- taking is whether proper inquiry specific peculiar activ- harm which reduce or significantly precautions would er being It is where the ity undertaken. injury. the risk eliminate doing employed the work methods to Here, to remove fixture was used particular surroundings in which the or the exhauster, and the from the are such as to work is to be done floor. was set on the attached cover with the calling ‘recognizable risks advance forklift, support, the only means of precautions’ that the contractee definite despite its from the fixture then removed for the failure to may be held answerable despite nature non-self-supporting precautions.” take such members not to his crew instructions Weiss’s Curl, at 711 Ind.App. forklift. If the forklift or move the to disturb Ind.App. Cummings, (quoting fixture, pulled not been out had 1275). Thus, determining N.E.2d at Supple- happened. accident would not exception ap whether the due Record at 476. mental “specific activity plies, the focus is on the reasons, these PSI is For all three of being the contractor and undertaken” injuries under liable for Carie and activity peculiar risk. such involves exception. intrinsically dangerous work contrast, intrinsically dangerous work In the nature of the work exception focuses on Probability Exception III. Four — activity specific than on the generally, rather Injury Due Precaution Absent Hale, Ind.App. undertaken. See argue also that PSI (“performance at 322 of work exception the fourth owed them a under Huff, intrinsically dangerous”); Stewart nonliability. ex- rule of This 447, 455-56,14 neg- liable for the ception holds a contractee (“inherent (1938) danger in the work con independent contractor “where ligence of an done.”). 7 Am. generally See tracted to be probably cause the act to be (dis (1990) § of Facts 3d Jur.Proof precaution is injury to others unless due danger between inherent cussing distinction Among Bagley, 658 N.E.2d taken.” risk). explanations for this ex- various offered focus, to the different areas addition appellate theme in the ception, a recurrent work, pe- activity the specific versus be risk of harm must decisions is that the doctrine, in the as it is embodied culiar risk specific work undertaken peculiar to the the intrinsic precaution exception, and due independent contractor. id. at 588 See distinguished be danger exception also work”); involved in the Curl (“peculiar risk precautionary mea- by considering the role of 132, Corp., Ind.App. 181 v. Bethlehem Steel exception, the danger intrinsic sures. In the (1979) (“risk 134, 709, of the risk will work is such that nature of the peculiar specific activi- which is harm by precau- completely eliminated never be grounds, Douglass v. ty”), overruled on other of the ex- tionary The rationale measures. (Ind.1990); Irvin, 368, 371 Cum- 549 N.E.2d liability as would in “strict ception sounds Ind.App. at 363 N.E.2d at mings, 173 example blasting.” exist for (noting description in PROSSER on at 1275. Ind.App. at (4th 1971) § as at 473 ed. Law of Torts Thus, all rea- the exercise of due even with “ risk”). ‘peculiar’ character of the care, always will a risk of sonable of the work. simply to the nature due more of risk is This classification doctrine, the other peculiar risk With the risk peculiar as the commonly referred to a hand, proper precautions for the use of generally 7 Am.Jur.Proof of doctrine. See the risk. specific activity would eliminate (1990). Although § Indiana Facts 3d due Foreseeability required both the is specifically recognized or have not courts danger exception the intrinsic precaution doctrine, explained this court has defined the Denneau, Ind.App. at exception. its essence as follows: precaution gravel In dumping piles at 12. the due volves of into context, “foreseeability concrete, is an ele in mixing although essential street use exception possible liability hauling ment of the is estab to is avoid when, contracting, gravel at the time of quantities lished small as A needed. inju employer knows piles gravel should foreseen also that such of will ry ‘likely happen.’” peculiar Red others was involve risk to automobile driv- Purvis, Inns, using night Inc. ers the street at unless red Roof Jones, (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (quoting placed upon 1345-46 lanterns are them as a warn- 346). See ing. pre- contractor fails take this B, (noting Bagley, also N.E.2d at 588 driving caution.. an automobile down exception night, pile essence of is “the street at runs into a due of foreseeability peculiar gravel injured. subject risk involved in A and is is precau liability special the work and of the need for to B.” tions.”). foreseeability requirement, § (Second) 416 cmt. Restatement of ToRts however, In is not without limitation. Red e, illus. 397-98. Roof, degree considered the this court Substituting proper parties into foreseeability employer of an required example following: the above results independent employee whose fell contractor employs perform Blount to maintenance during roofing project. holding that the Cayuga Generating services Station. employer Blount, employs As PSI knows when it subject precau liability under the due maintenance involve activities will removal of exception, explained: we the exhauster covers that the method for employer “The of an contrac- performing such will removal involve the use that, may always anticipate tor if the con- of the non-self-supporting fixture. PSI also persons, negligent tractor is toward third that use of knows the fixture involve a persons may some harm to those result. peculiar vicinity risk to those in its unless the (Second) See [ Torts] Restatement continuously supported. is Blount b, Thus, § 413 cmt. Red Roof precaution. to take this fails Carie and Har possibility could have foreseen the per, vicinity two workers in the fixture injured Purvis fall if could be from a no process being per removal is safety precautions place. were in More formed, injured are when the fixture falls on however, possibility harm, than the subject liability PSI is them. to Carie and required; plaintiff proba- must show Harper. bility of such harm.” emphasize We that the determination to be Roof, Red 691 N.E.2d at 1346. made is whether the maintenance In reaching Roof, conclusion in our Red agreed services involved a approach this court noted the of the Restate- peculiar rather, question, risk. The (Second) ment of Torts to the risk use of the non-self-supporting question. recognizes pe- The Restatement fixture to remove an exhauster cover would culiar risk which employer as one should happen” “likely pre- make unless recognize “likely to arise” in either cautionary measures were taken. The an- ordinary course of the and usual method of yes. swer self-sup- is fixture was not work, doing “particular in method porting. precautionary Unless measures employer which the knows that the contrac- in providing were taken the form of continu- tor will adopt.” Restatement (Second) fixture, support to by ous either leaving e, § 416 cmt. at 397. The Restate- ToRts by it tying attached the forklift it off to concept ment illustrates this as follows: structure, an overhead the fixture would fall. employs independent And,

“3. A an contrac- 5,200-pound when fixture with a ex- lay tor to pave- a concrete foundation for hauster cover falls in an attached indoor ment in public populated workers, street. A knows As environment several it contractor, when employs he likely cus- that injury. cause tomary Thus, of doing such in- method work foreseeable to PSI at the time of principal have foreseen that unsup- left should if the fixture was contracting that injury. performance of the work or the conditions likely cause fall and ported, it would would, reason, cover removal it was to be the exhauster under which For this used, measures, probably and its precautionary in the fixture process which absent risk, bring PSI within foreseeable injury. attendant cause exception precaution the due exception this fourth Application of Thus, grant of sum- the trial court’s rule.4 requires an exam- plaintiffs claim thus mary on the basis that PSI owed judgment whether, party] [a ination at the time duty no was erroneous. independent contrac- employed as an duty was the issue emphasize that We tor, peculiar risk which was there existed a summary judg presented in motion for reasonably recogniz- foreseeable and elements of Record at 258. The ment. ably precautionary measures. called for not addressed.5 and causation were breach Co., L.P., Bagley Insight Communications summary judg PSI was entitled Whether (Ind.1995) (citations open elements remains an ment on those omitted). question. Reversed. analysis depart majority’s I with from the similarity that must respect to the factual J., SULLIVAN, concurs. danger which must have exist between the actually foreseen and the incident that been FRIEDLANDER, J., dissents with danger I believe the that the con- occurred. separate opinion. in to fit within the tractee must foresee order FRIEDLANDER, dissenting. Judge, substantially exception fourth must be simi- I trial court was correct in believe that the produced that the com- lar to the accident summary judgment in entering favor regard plained-of injury. I note majority’s respectfully dissent from the the court in Jones v. particularity with which contrary. conclusion to the Co., Light 158 Ind. Indianapolis Power & (1973) App. recited majority owed a concludes affirming sum- the facts of the incident precau- duty appellants under the due judgment of the defendant: mary favor exception providing rule indepen- that a contraetee owes no to an that, at the time There was no evidence view, my exception contractor. dent Combustion, Ipaleo Ipalco contracted apply here. does or should have foreseen that could foresee explained supreme court has the due atop Our switch a man and the limit control exception as follows: precaution indepen- operated materials hoist use of its dent contractor for exclusive exception is the fore- The essence of clogged become with ice seeability risk involved causing the hoist to stick-and special pre- and snow of the need for the work and where, employees of such con- exception applies cautions. contract, manipulate the undertake to making of the tractor would the time of the proximate that have 5. PSI included a brief reference 4. We are aware of no Indiana cases exception applicable argument found the due with its that it cause in connection employer contractor. The of an any duty it had as a landowner to warn satisfied apply exception cases that have declined to dangers with the fixture. Rec- associated allegations general type have all involved that a put sufficient to have ord at 270. This is not See, e.g., Bag of work involves a risk. proximate the trial court so cause at issue before (roof Roof, ley, (trenching); Red 658 N.E.2d 584 opportunity give as to ing); designate any respond evidence to the issue (trenching). cases involved a None of these respect Despite they may thereto. have had with procedure instrumentality specialized used in appellate its brief of section PSI’s inclusion in particular project with a as in connection cause, addressing proximate we limit our deci- reason, present cases are case. For this those sion to the issue. distinguishable the case at bar. from circuitry so as to cause hoist death MILBURN, Appellant-

injury. Gerald Estes Respondent, undisputed of the in the facts accident v. instant case are Carrie and were Appellee-Petitioner. MILBURN, M. Helen injured they working behind the taking front cover the blades off a fan. No. 41A05-9708-CV-338. injuries Their were caused when the front Court of Appeals Indiana. fell. cover cover The front fell when employee of the April supporting a fork moved lift jig, leaving cover and an attached the cover

unsupported. are undis- Because facts

puted, precaution in the context due

exception, the issue is whether should performance

have foreseen of main- repair

tenance work the exhausters power plant probably would result this

particular injury-producing kind of incident

unless due was exercised. See Co., L.P.,

Bagley Insight Communications

658 N.E.2d 584.

In summary, consistent with Jones and

Bagley, in order to determine

requisite foreseeability case, following ques-

instant we must ask the

tion: At signing the time of the of the con-

tract, could have foreseen that a forklift fail supporting jig

would while it was cover, employee

front and that a Blount forklift,

would move the leaving the front unsupported, fall would then

injure view, my question someone? In

must negative. in the answered I do not type

believe that occurrence was fore- signing

seeable the time of the grant

contract. I affirm the of sum-

mary judgment in favor PSI.

Case Details

Case Name: Carie v. PSI Energy, Inc.

Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals

Date Published: Apr 23, 1998

Citation: 694 N.E.2d 729

Docket Number: 83A01-9707-CV-229

Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.