Mаthew Bailey Watson suffered a back injury during his employment with Applied Industrial Technologies (Applied Industrial) when he attempted to lift a heavy trash container with one arm while moving by on a forklift. After receiving workers’ cоmpensation benefits from Applied Industrial for the job-related injury, Watson sued General Mechanical Services, Inc. (General Mechanical) as a third-party tortfeasor.
Watson operated a type of four-wheeled, motorized forklift known as an “order picker” used to pick product orders from rows of shelves at the Applied Industriаl warehouse. The record shows that operators
The trash containers were opеn, barrel-shaped plastic containers about three feet high with about a thirty- to forty-gallon capacity. According to Watson, every container had a sign over it stating that the container was only for disposal of paper or plastic. Watson testified by deposition that, while he was traveling in the order picker and steering it with his right hand from a standing position on the platform, he reached out with his left arm as he approached a trash container, grabbed it with his left hand, and attempted to pull it up onto the platform table as he passed by the container. Watson testified that picking up trash containers in this fashion while on thе move was his usual method, and that no one ever told him not to do it that way. But this time, instead of containing paper and plastic and weighing only five or ten pounds, as Watson expected, the container was nearly full of discarded metal roller parts of the type used on the conveyer system at the warehouse, and weighed 80 to 100 pounds. Watson did not look into the container before attempting to lift it with one arm while passing by, so he did not know that the container had metal rollers in it and was much heavier than the usual five or ten pounds. Watson testified that, when he grabbed the trash container as he passed by, “it didn’t move and it snatched [him] back” оnto the table to the rear of the platform and off the order picker, injuring his back.
Watson and all other Applied Industrial order picker operators received training in the proper and safe oрeration of an order picker. All operators were instructed that, when the order picker was moving, they were to maintain a lookout for people or objects in their path, and were never tо put hands, arms, feet, or legs outside the confines of the order picker. The warehouse manager for Applied Industrial testified that attempting to reach out to pick up the trash container while moving by it in the оrder picker was not a safe procedure because it distracted the operator from maintaining a lookout and posed a risk of injury to the operator. The team leader at Applied Industriаl for the shift during which Watson was injured testified that it was not a safe operating procedure for Watson to attempt to lift up the trash container while the order picker was moving. Another
In his complaint against General Mechanical, Watson alleged that General Mechanical employees doing repair work for Applied Industrial on the warehouse conveyor system caused his back injury when they negligently discarded metal roller parts from the conveyor into the container marked for paper and plastic trash. No one saw who placed the metal rollers into the trash container, and General Mechanical employees testified that they did not put the rollers in the container. Watson, however, produced evidence that General Mechanical employees did repairs on the conveyor system prior to the accident, that no one other than General Mechanical employees worked on the conveyor system, and that the metal rollers in the container were parts from the conveyor system. Construing the evidence on summary judgment in favor of Watson, we find that there was circumstantial evidence sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whethеr General Mechanical employees put the metal rollers in the trash container. Nevertheless, even if General Mechanical employees put the metal rollers in the trash container knowing it was designated only for paper or plastic, this constitutes actionable negligence, as alleged by Watson, only if there is also evidence establishing the essential elements of a negligence claim.
A сause of action for negligence must contain the following essential elements:
(1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonablе risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff s legally protected interest as a rеsult of the alleged breach of the legal duty.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bradley Center, Inc. v. Wessner,
There is no evidence that, prior to Watson’s injury, an order picker operator or any other person suffered physical harm because items heavier than paper or plastic had been placed in a trash container at the warehouse. The trash container at issue was open at the top, so its contents were easily observable to anyone who looked to see what it contained before attempting to lift the container. The record shows that, when Watson attempted to lift the container while moving past it in the order picker, he did not look in the container to see that it contained objects heavier than paper and plastic, and he made no effort to ascertain what the container weighed. Moreover, by reaching out with one arm from a moving order picker, Watson operated the order picker in violation of safety procedures and attempted to lift the container in a manner that рosed a danger of physical injury to himself and others. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any employee of General Mechanical should have foreseen these actions by Watson.
Although negligence and foreseeability are generally issues of fact, they may be decided as a matter of law where the relevant facts are plain and indisputable. Bolden v. Barnes,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Watson’s wife, Lashanna Watson, joined as a plaintiff in the suit alleging loss of consortium, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Applied Industrial’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, intervened in the suit to preserve its subrogation lien against any recovery by Mathew Watson against General Mechanical.
The trial court also correctly granted summary judgment in favor of General Mechanical on Lashanna Watson’s claim for loss of consortium because it was derivative of Mathew Watson’s negligence claim. Supchak v. Pruitt,