ILNews

Appeals court sides with estate of contractor killed on the job

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled an employer was liable for the safety of a subcontractor who fell from a ladder and sustained a fatal injury.

In Capitol Construction Services, Inc. v. Amy Gray, as Personal Rep. of the Estateof Clinton Gray and All One, Inc., No. 49A04-1005-CT-289, the appeals court held that Indiana common law states that employers do not have a duty to supervise the work of an independent contractor to assure a safe workplace and, consequently, employers are not liable for negligence by an independent contractor. But a handful of exceptions apply, and the COA held the trial court did not err in applying one of those exceptions in this case.

Capitol Construction Services hired All One Inc. – the employer of Clinton Gray – as a subcontractor. Gray was testing electrical lines approximatly 15 to 17 feet in the air on a portable ladder when he came in contact with live wires, fell and hit his head on the floor. He died as a result of the fall.

The trial court ruled, and the COA agreed, that per the terms of the contract between Capitol Construction and All One, Capitol had guaranteed to provide fall protection equipment for all workers – employees and subcontractors – when working above the height of six feet. Accordingly, the COA affirmed the trial court’s decision to award summary judgment in favor of Gray’s estate.

Judge Ezra Friedlander agreed but wrote a separate opinion to explain how his affirmation in this opinion is not contrary to his opinion in Hunt Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Garrett, 938 N.E.2d 794 (Friedlander, J., dissenting). Hunt is currently before the Indiana Supreme Court upon the grant of Hunt Construction Group’s petition for transfer.

In Hunt, Friedlander dissented from the majority opinion that Hunt was liable for a worker’s injuries. Hunt was the construction manager on a site where an employee of Baker Concrete was injured, and Friedlander stated that the contract between Hunt and Baker showed Baker would “remain the controlling employer responsible for the safety programs and precautions.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT