BOYER v KLOEPFER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13195 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1976 MELVIN BOYER, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - RICHARD KLOEPFER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C h a r l e s Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Michael J. Whalen a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: Crowley, K i l b o u r n e , Haughey, Hanson & G a l l a g h e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana H. Elwood E n g l i s h a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: A p r i l 22, 1976 C ~ecide: d Filed : ., ... ;i 13, Hon. R. D . M c P h i l l i p s , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, g r a n t i n g summary judgment t o defendant. The f a c t s a r e e s s e n t i a l l y undisputed. P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o recover damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by him when he f e l l from a s c a f f o l d . Both p l a i n t i f f and defendant made a motion f o r summary judgment on t h e grounds t h e r e was no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t on t h e q u e s t i o n of l i a b i l i t y . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment t o defendant Richard Kloepfer. P l a i n t i f f , Melvin Boyer, appealed. Plaintiff and a p p e l l a n t h e r e a f t e r s h a l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s Boyer and defendant and respondent a s Kloepf e r . Kloepfer i s a masonry c o n t r a c t o r . He b i d a job a t E a s t e r n Montana College a g a i n s t one E a r l Williams. Williams had t h e low b i d and r e c e i v e d t h e c o n t r a c t t o do t h e masonry m r k . Williams then h i r e d Kloepfer a s h i s masonry foreman f o r t h e c o l l e g e job. I n a d d i t i o n , Williams and Kloepfer e n t e r e d i n t o a r e n t a l agreement whereby Kloepfer was t o f u r n i s h equipment, i n c l u d i n g s c a f f o l d i n g , upon t h e job f o r $3,500. The s c a f f o l d f u r n i s h e d by Kloepfer included planking, s c a f f o l d j a c k s , b r a c e s , s c a f f o l d b r a c k e t s and o t h e r equipment necessary t o do t h e masonry work a t E a s t e r n Montana College. Kloepfer' s job a s Williams ' foreman included h i r i n g hod c a r r i e r s and b r i c k l a y e r s a s w e l l a s g e n e r a l l y s u p e r v i s i n g a l l t h e masonry work on b e h a l f of Williams. On May 22, 1972, w h i l e working a s an employee of Williams on t h e Eastern Montana College j o b , Boyer was pushing a wheel- barrow f u l l of wet c o n c r e t e along t h e s c a f f o l d and w h i l e going up an i n c l i n e thereon which had a plywood f l o o r and was u n s t a b l e , t h e weight of t h e wheelbarrow s h i f t e d , gushed him backwards o f f t h e s c a f f o l d i n g , and he f e l l t o t h e ground approximately 1 3 f e e t below. The wheelbarrow f u l l of wet cement followed him o f f t h e s c a f f o l d and landed d i r e c t l y upon Boyer's back causing s e v e r e injury . I n t h e a r e a where Boyer f e l l t o t h e ground, t h e r e were no X b r a c e s , g u a r d r a i l s o r kickboards. A g u a r d r a i l may have p r e - vented h i s f a l l and kickboards may have prevented t h e wheelbarrow f u l l of wet c o n c r e t e from f a l l i n g on him. Three i s s u e s a r e presented: 1. Under t h e f a c t s and circumstances of t h i s c a s e i s Kloepfer l i a b l e t o Boyer under t h e S c a f f o l d Act? Under t h e f a c t s and circumstances of t h i s c a s e i s 1947 Kloepfer l i a b l e t o Boyer under s e c t i o n 92-204, R.c.M/, of t h e 2. Workmen's Compensation Act? 3. Were any genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t p r e s e n t s o a s t o preclude t h e t r i a l c o u r t from e n t e r i n g summary judgment h e r e i n ? Dealing w i t h t h e f i r s t i s s u e t h i s Court i n S t a t e ex r e l . Great F a l l s National Bank v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 336, 343, 463 P.2d 326, s t a t e d : "* * * a g a i n s t whom i s t h e i n j u r e d workman e n t i t l e d t o recover? O r s t a t e d a n o t h e r way, who owes t h e b a s i c d u t y imposed by t h e S c a f f o l d Act? W must look t o t h e e S c a f f o l d Act i t s e l f t o determine t h e answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . S e c t i o n 69-1402, R.C.M. 1947, imposes a duty on ' every owner, person, o r c o r p o r a t i o n -who- s h a l l have- t h e d i r e c t and immediate s u p e r v i s i o n o r c o n t r o l of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r remodeling of any b u i l d i n g having more than t h r e e framed f l o o r s ' t o provide a temporary planked f l o o r 'which s h a l l be l a i d t o form a good s u b s t a n t i a l temporary f l o o r f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of employees and a l l persons engaged above o r below, o r on such temporary f l o o r i n such b u i l d i n g . ' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) - "Section 69-1404, R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t ' I t s h a l l be t h e duty of a l l owners, c o n t r a c t o r s , b u i l d e r s , o r persons having t h e d i r e c t and immediate c o n t r o l o r supervision of any b u i l d i n g s ' under c o n s t r u c t i o n t o p r o t e c t s t a i r w a y s , e l e v a t o r openings, f l u e s , and a l l o t h e r openings i n the f l o o r s . (Emphasis supplied.) "In our view n e i t h e r t h e language nor t h e purpose of t h e Scaffold Act suggests any i n t e n t i o n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o g r a n t m u l t i p l e remedies o r damages t o i n j u r e d workmen by g r a n t i n g one recovery a g a i n s t t h e landowner, another recovery a g a i n s t t h e general cont r a c t o r , a t h i r d recovery a g a i n s t t h e subcontractor using t h e s c a f f o l d i n g , and s o on ad infinitum. On t h e c o n t r a r y it i s c l e a r t o us from t h e language of t h e Act construed i n t h e l i g h t of i t s purpose t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended only t o make t h e i n j u r e d workman whole by g r a n t i n g him r e l i e f t o t h e e x t e n t of h i s i n j u r i e s and damages a g a i n s t t h e person, f i r m o r corporation having d i r e c t and immediate c o n t r o l of t h e work involving t h e use of scaffolding." It i s c l e a r t h i s Court has previously determined t h e person, firm corporation having d i r e c t and immediate c o n t r o l of t h e work involving t h e use of s c a f f o l d i n g i s t h e one upon which a duty i s imposed by t h e Scaffold Act. Kloepfer was i n immediate c o n t r o l of t h e work t h a t involved t h e use of s c a f f o l d i n g , but he exercised t h a t c o n t r o l a s t h e foreman of E a r l Williams Masonry. There i s a b s o l u t e l y no d i s p u t e from t h e record t h a t Kloepfer was anything o t h e r than E a r l Williams Masonry's foreman. Kloepfer was paid an hourly wage by Williams; h e h i r e d b r i c k l a y e r s and hod c a r r i e r s on Williams' b e h a l f ; he d i d not share i n any p r o f i t s from t h e job; he was i n s t r u c t e d by Williams on how Williams wished t h e job t o be done; nothing suggests Kloepfer was anything o t h e r than an E a r l Williams Masonry employee. Kloepfer cannot be held l i a b l e under t h e Scaffold Act a s he acted simply a s Williams' employee and not an owner, person o r corporation,who had d i r e c t and immediate super- v i s i o n and c o n t r o l of t h e masonry construction. Second, can Kloepfer be held l i a b l e under t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 92-204, a s amended i n 1969, s i n c e repealed and replaced 1947 by s e c t i o n 92-204.1, R.C.M./which allowed a fellow workman t o be held l i a b l e when t h e i n j u r i e s of any employee, ** It* a r e caused by t h e i n t e n t i o n a l and malicious a c t o r omission of a s e r v a n t o r employee of h i s employer ** *.It I n t h i s connection, Boyer had t h e following t o say i n h i s deposition: Did Dick Kloepfer have anything t o do with "Q. t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e s c a f f o l d t h a t you f e l l o f f o f ? A. I d o n ' t know f o r s u r e . A l l I know, i t was h i s scaffolding. "Q. I t was h i s s c a f f o l d i n g , you say? A. Yeh. Q . Did Dick Kloepfer have anything t o do with removing o r p u t t i n g any braces on t h a t s c a f f o l d ? That you know o f . A . Well, I haven't seen anybody do anything with i t . You know, I haven't seen Dick do anything w i t h i t . D you have any reason t o hold Dick Kloepfer pero "Q. s o n a l l y responsible f o r what happened t o you? A . (No response. ) That you know o f . A . Well, I c a n ' t "Q. no, I have nothing personal a g a i n s t him. *** It's *** D you have any reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t he has o "Q. anything personal a g a i n s t you? A. No. Q . "Q. A. Did you g e t along with him okay? A. Yes. Would you say your r e l a t i o n s h i p was a Yes, I ' d say it was. I I good one? The s c a f f o l d i n g i n t h i s c a s e was rented by E a r l Williams Masonry from Kloepfer, a f a c t which i s undisputed. In this regard Kloepfer t e s t i f i e d i n h i s deposition: And a s a p a r t of t h i s agreement t o r e n t equipment t o "Q. him, was it understood t h a t you would maintain and i n s t a l l t h e equipment on the job? A. No, t h e r e was nothing along t h a t l i n e . Well, a s a p a r t of t h a t agreement d i d you i n "Q. f a c t maintain t h e equipment upon t h e job and i n s t a l l t h e s c a f f o l d i n g , f o r example? A . No, I d i d n ' t maintain it or E a r l Williams d i d any maintaining o r anything l i k e t h a t t h a t had t o do. Like he bought t h e g a s o l i n e . He provided any of t h e expenses. I t was h i s job. - "Q. And a s t h e owner of t h a t equipment, and p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e s c a f f o l d i n g t h a t you had rented t o E a r l Williams, d i d you oversee t h e e r e c t i o n of i t ? A. Well, I would say t h i s , t h a t I was h i s foreman on t h e job. It was m job t o see t h a t everything was done a s f a r a s y t h e masonry work was concerned. I had hod c a r r i e r s h i r e d and I had b r i c k l a y e r s h i r e d . Those a r e t h e two people t h a t I worked with o r d e a l t with. They were under m c o n t r o l . y The hod c a r r i e r ' s job i s t o , b a s i c a l l y , f i r s t of a l l , when t h e r e i s a masonry job t o be done they move t h e equipment onto t h e job, they put the m a t e r i a l i n t h e p o s i t i o n where t h a t includes t h e b r i c k , t h e t h e b r i c k l a y e r can g e t up they do t h e s e t t i n g up of a l l t h i s block, t h e mortar various equipment and m a t e r i a l s t o proceed with t h e masonry work. The hod c a r r i e r s - - - "Q. But a s I understand your testimony, you were i n immediate charge of s e t t i n g t h i s job up i n s o f a r a s superv i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s concerned, i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes. A foreman i s , I would say, responsible f o r b u i l d i n g t h e job t h e b e s t way he knows how." The record f u r t h e r d i s c l o s e s t h a t when t h i s unfortunate accident took p l a c e , Kloepfer was n o t a t t h e job s i t e . Kloepfer, a s foreman f o r E a r l Williams, had t h e responsib i l i t y f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n , e r e c t i o n and maintenance of t h e scaffolding. N malice o r i n t e n t t o harm has been shown and o Boyer concedes t h a t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with Kloepfer was always a good one. There i s no evidence t o t h e c o n t r a r y so t h e condi- t i o n s under which a workman could sue a co-worker i n t o r t under s e c t i o n 92-204, R.C.M. 1947, a r e not s a t i s f i e d . The t h i r d i s s u e , d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n g r a n t i n g Kloepf e r ' s mot ion f o r summary judgment? Boyer contends he was not t h e fellow employee of Kloepfer i n s o f a r a s t h e f u r n i s h i n g of t h e s c a f f o l d i n g f o r t h e job i s concerned. That having been furnished under a s e p a r a t e agreement between Williams and Kloepfer, and t h a t h i s f a i l u r e t o provide X braces, g u a r d r a i l s and kickboards a t t h e point Boyer f e l l o f f t h e s c a f f o l d made Kloepfer l i a b l e t o Boyer o r a t l e a s t c r e a t e d an i s s u e of f a c t . Rule 5 6 ( c ) , Montana Rules C i v i l Procedure, provides, i n t e r alia: "The judgment sought s h a l l be rendered f o r t h w i t h i f t h e pleadings, d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and admissions on f i l e show t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a matter of law." The complaint contains no a l l e g a t i o n of a duty on t h e p a r t of Kloepfer t o provide a l l t h e s a f e t y mechanisms t h a t a r e normally required with scaffolding. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o pro- v i d e such equipment i s t h a t of E a r l Williams Masonry who was t h e c o n t r a c t o r having t h e d i r e c t and immediate c o n t r o l of t h e b u i l d i n g under c o n s t r u c t i o n , s e c t i o n 69-1404, R.C.M. 1947. A s a matter of law t h e Scaffold Act and t h e Workmen's Compensation Act a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e claim involved under t h e undisputed f a c t s of t h i s case. There i s no theory of t h e law pleaded t h a t would allow recovery of any damages by Boyer a s a g a i n s t Kloepfer. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n g r a n t i n g Kloepfer' s motion f o r summary judgment. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. I Hon. R. D. McPhillips, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. We Concur: L 8 J Justices. Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting: I would vacate the order of summary judgment in view of the fact that testimony indicates that Kloepfer removed part of the scaffolding equipment and put it on a job he was operating as a scaffolding contractor. t 'us
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
