STEPANEK v KOBER CONSTRUCTION

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-333 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 LARRY STEPANEK, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , KOBER CONSTRUCTION AND THE C U T O YELLOWSTONE, BY AND O NY F T R U H THE COMISSIONERS THEREOF, e t a l . , HO G D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of 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 , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: S t e p h e n s and C o l e , B i l l i n g s , Montana Kinnard a n d Woodward, B i l l i n g s , Montana Dave K i n n a r d a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: Moulton, B e l l i n g h a m , Longo & M a t h e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana C o r i n n e C o u r t n e y and Ward Swanser a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: MAR 1 1 19@ February 20, 1981 March 11, 1 9 8 1 J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. A p p e l l a n t , a n employee of a s u b c o n t r a c t o r h i r e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , a p p e a l s from summary judgment granted t o the defendants i n the D i s t r i c t Court. However, a p p e l l a n t l i m i t s h i s a p p e a l t o t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , Kober Construction. I n December of 1973, t h e r e s p o n d e n t and Yellowstone County e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e Metra, a m u l t i - p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t y i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. I n J a n u a r y of 1974, t h e r e s p o n d e n t e n t e r e d i n t o a s u b c o n t r a c t w i t h A l b e r t D. Wardell Masonry f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f masonry work r e q u i r e d i n t h e Metra p r o j e c t . Appellant was i n j u r e d i n a f a l l from t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ' s s c a f f o l d i n g on A p r i l 1 7 , 1975. The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s b u t f a i l e d t o s t a t e the reasons therefor. D i s a p p r o v a l of s u c h f a i l u r e h a s been r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n f i l e d i n Big Man v . S t a t e of Montana and Case (No. 80-265, d e c i d e d March 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 ) . I n t h e f u t u r e , we a s k t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s s t a t e t h e r e a s o n s f o r g r a n t i n g summary judgment. Court Here w e w i l l r e v i e w a l l i s s u e s argued t o t h i s . For p u r p o s e s of t h i s a p p e a l , a l l f a c t u a l d i s p u t e s must be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r of a p p e l l a n t , a g a i n s t whom summary judgment was g r a n t e d . 447, 450, 548 P . 2 d Harland v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 613, 615. Defendant and r e s p o n d e n t , Kober C o n s t r u c t i o n , w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o a s g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r . A l b e r t D. Wardell Masonry w i l l b e r e f e r r e d t o a s s u b c o n t r a c t o r . The primary c o n t r a c t between t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r and Yellowstone County r e q u i r e d t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r t o b e " r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n i t i a t i n g , m a i n t a i n i n g , and s u p e r v i s i n g a l l s a f e t y p r e c a u t i o n s and programs" c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e construction. Consistent with t h i s provision, the general c o n t r a c t o r ' s j o b s u p e r i n t e n d e n t conducted r e g u l a r s a f e t y m e e t i n g s w i t h a l l s u b c o n t r a c t o r s on t h e p r o j e c t and i n one i n s t a n c e , t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r was o r d e r e d t o remove a workman from s c a f f o l d i n g b e c a u s e t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r f e l t t h e workman's n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t would c a u s e i n j u r y . The s u b c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r comply w i t h a l l a p p l i c a b l e s a f e t y and h e a l t h laws and f u r t h e r : ". . . p r o v i d e a l l s a f e g u a r d s , s a f e t y d e v i c e s , and p r o t e c t i v e equipment and t a k e any o t h e r needed a c t i o n s on h i s own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; o r a s t h e C o n t r a c t o r may d e t e r m i n e r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o p r o t e c t t h e l i f e and h e a l t h o f employees on t h e job and t h e s a f e t y of t h e p u b l i c and t o p r o t e c t p r o p e r t y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e performance of t h e work c o v e r e d herein. " The s i g n i f i c a n t i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r owed a d u t y of c a r e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t and i f s o , upon what b a s i s . I f t h e r e was no d u t y owed, t h e n t h e r e can be no i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t and g r a n t i n g of summary judgment was p r o p e r . Mont. , Rennick v. Hoover ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 606 P.2d 1079, 1081, 37 St.Rep. 308, 310. A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r owed him a d u t y of c a r e p r e d i c a t e d upon (1) c o n t r o l of t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ' s work r e s e r v e d i n t h e s u b c o n t r a c t and i n f a c t , e x e r c i s e d by the general contractor; 77-101, MCA; MCA; ( 2 ) t h e S c a f f o l d i n g A c t , s e c t i o n 50- ( 3 ) t h e S a f e P l a c e s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 50-71-201, and ( 4 ) t h e p r i m a r y c o n t r a c t r e q u i r i n g t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s a f e t y on t h e p r o j e c t . The g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r c o n t e n d s (1) c o n t r o l of t h e subc o n t r a c t o r was n e i t h e r r e s e r v e d nor e x e r c i s e d ; (2) application o f t h e s t a t u t e s would be improper b e c a u s e t h e r e q u i s i t e e l e m e n t of c o n t r o l was l a c k i n g ; (3) safety obligations assumed i n t h e p r i m a r y c o n t r a c t were d e l e g a t e d ; and ( 4 ) a p p e l l a n t ' s contributory negligence b a r s recovery. A p p e l l a n t f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t i f t h e c a s e i s remanded f o r t r i a l , O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (O.S.H.A.) se. v i o l a t i o n s s h o u l d be t r e a t e d a s n e g l i g e n c e p e r The e f f e c t of t h o s e r e g u l a t i o n s i s h e r e i n d i s c u s s e d . GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S CONTROL: Montana r e c o g n i z e s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t " a b s e n t some form of c o n t r o l o v e r t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ' s method of o p e r a t i o n , t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r and owner of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t a r e n o t l i a b l e f o r i n j u r i e s t o t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ' s employees." Shannon v . Howard S. Wright C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. , 593 P.2d 438, 4 4 1 , 36 St.Rep. of T o r t s 2d, s e c t i o n 4 1 4 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . (19791, Mont. 632, 636; 2 R e s t a t e m e n t Both p a r t i e s r e l y upon Shannon a s t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t e m e n t of law. Appellant contends t h a t t h e r e q u i s i t e "control" e x i s t s i f t h e general c o n t r a c t o r had a n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y t o " c o n t r o l " . A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s i n d i c a t e s t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r ' s d e g r e e of a c t u a l c o n t r o l i s d i s p u t e d . First, t h e s u b c o n t r a c t c l a u s e p u r p o r t e d by r e s p o n d e n t t o have delegated a l l s a f e t y responsibility t o the subcontractor, d o e s n o t do s o . The g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r r e s e r v e d r i g h t t o c o n t r o l s a f e t y compliance on t h e p r o j e c t . Second, t h e d e p o s i t i o n s of t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r and t h e job superintendent f o r t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , demonstrate t h e subcontractor's acquiescence i n t h e general c o n t r a c t o r ' s s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e p r o j e c t ' s s a f e t y . The s u b c o n t r a c t o r s a t t e n d e d weekly s a f e t y m e e t i n g s conducted by t h e g e n e r a l contractor. S u b c o n t r a c t o r Wardell complied w i t h t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r ' s r e q u e s t t h a t an employee be removed from t h e s c a f f o l d i n g and a s s i g n e d t o work on t h e ground. However, a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m i s n o t l i m i t e d by a showing of a c t u a l control. The g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r assumed c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h Yellowstone County. Specifically, t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r a g r e e d t o m a i n t a i n and s u p e r v i s e job safety. Montana h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t s i m i l a r c o n t r a c t u a l a r r a n g e m e n t s r e s u l t i n c r e a t i o n of a n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y . Ulmen v. Schwieger ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 92 Mont. 331, 1 2 P.2d 856. In Ulmen t h e d u t y e x t e n d e d t o a t h i r d p e r s o n n o t employed by a s u b c o n t r a c t o r . Here we must d e c i d e i f t h a t n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y e x t e n d s t o employees. W h o l d t h a t i t d o e s , and t h e b a s i s e f o r our holding i s discussed i n connection with a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e S c a f f o l d i n g Act. APPLICATION OF THE SCAFFOLDING ACT: S e c t i o n 50-77-101, MCA, states: "All scaffolds erected i n t h i s s t a t e f o r use i n the e r e c t i o n , r e p a i r , a l t e r a t i o n , o r removal of b u i l d i n g s s h a l l be w e l l and s a f e l y s u p p o r t e d , of s u f f i c i e n t w i d t h , and p r o p e r l y s e c u r e d s o a s t o e n s u r e t h e s a f e t y of p e r s o n s working on them o r p a s s i n g under them o r by them and t o p r e v e n t them from f a l l i n g o r t o p r e v e n t any m a t e r i a l t h a t may be u s e d , p l a c e d , o r d e p o s i t e d on them from f a l l i n g . " The s t a t u t e d o e s n o t e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e what p e r s o n s owe t h e d u t y imposed. I n S t a t e e x r e l . G r e a t F a l l s Nat. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. Bank v . 336, 463 P.2d 326, t h i s C o u r t h e l d a landowner bank, n o t i n c o n t r o l of t h e work i n v o l v i n g t h e s c a f f o l d , was n o t l i a b l e t o a c o n t r a c t o r ' s employee under t h e s t a t u t e . The C o u r t d e f i n e d t h e s c o p e of t h e Scaffolding A c t ifi t h e foflawing t e r m s : ". . . i t i s c l e a r t o u s from t h e language of t h e A c t c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t of i t s p u r p o s e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d o n l y t o make t h e i n j u r e d work- man whole by g r a n t i n g him r e l i e f h i s i n j u r i e s and damages a g a i n s t o r c o r p o r a t i o n h a v i n g d i r e c t and of t h e work i n v o l v i n g t h e u s e of G r e a t F a l l s Nat. - 154 Mont. - Bank, 326, 331. t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e person, firm immediate c o n t r o l scaffolding." 336, 345, 463 P.2d The c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t s e c t i o n 50-77-102, s e c t i o n 50-77-104, R.C.M. MCA, and t h e n r e f e r r e d t o a s s e c t i o n 69-1402, MCA, 1947, and s e c t i o n 69-1404, R.C.M. 1947, showed l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o l i m i t t h e S c a f f o l d i n g Act t o "one i n immediate c o n t r o l . " The c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e s e two s t a t u t e s e x p r e s s l y a p p l i e d o n l y t o "owners, c o n t r a c t o r s , b u i l d e r s , o r p e r s o n s having t h e d i r e c t and immediate c o n t r o l o r s u p e r v i s i o n of any b u i l d i n g s . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) However, t h e c o u r t had t o f a c e t h e i s s u e of n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y b e c a u s e i f t h e bank owed a d u t y t o c o n t r o l which i t c o u l d n o t d e l e g a t e , t h e n i t would be s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Act. The c o u r t r e f e r r e d t o p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s which were based upon nondelegable duty, i . e . , Ulmen v. Schwieger, s u p r a , b u t d i s t i n g u i s h e d on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y d i d n o t i n v o l v e employees of a s u b c o n t r a c t o r . T h i s C o u r t t h u s began t o c o n s t r u c t a d i s t i n c t i o n between employees of a s u b c o n t r a c t o r and t h i r d p e r s o n s s u c h a s t h e o n e i n j u r e d i n Ulmen. This d i s t i n c t i o n reached i t s climax i n A s h c r a f t v . Montana Power Co. P.2d ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 156 Mont. 368, 480 812. I t was t h e r e h e l d t h a t , where t h e Montana Power Co. employed an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r t o c o n s t r u c t l i n e s , a n i n j u r e d employee of t h a t s u b c o n t r a c t o r was p r e c l u d e d from s u i n g Montana Power b e c a u s e of t h e e x c l u s i v e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e wsr3cmarra1 Compensation Act. J u s t i c e Daly d i s s e n t e d . J u s t i c e Haswell d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e . I n response t o Ashcraft, the d e l e g a t e s t o t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n v e n t i o n a d o p t e d A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 1 6 , which, a s r a t i f i e d , provides i n p a r t : "The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e . C o u r t s of j u s t i c e s h a l l be open t o e v e r y p e r s o n , and speedy remedy a f f o r d e d f o r e v e r y i n j u r y of p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y , o r character. N p e r s o n s h a l l be d e p r i v e d - - i s f u l l o of t h l e g a l r e d r e s s f o r i n j u r y i n c u r r e d i n employment f o r which a n o t h e r p e r s o n m a y be l i a b l e e x c e p t - - - l a s t o £e and h i s low employees - - immediate employer who h i r e d him i f such immediate employer p r o v i d e s c o v e r a g e under t h e Workmen's compensation Laws of t h i s s t a t e (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) . . ." I n moving p a s s a g e of t h i s s e c t i o n , d e l e g a t e Murray s a i d : ". . . Under Montana law, a s announced i n t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of A s h c r a f t v. Montana Power Company, t h e employee h a s no r e d r e s s a g a i n s t t h i r d p a r t i e s f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by them i f h i s immediate employer i s c o v e r e d under t h e Workmen's Compensat i o n Law." TR. of t h e Mont. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convent i o n , Volume 7 , P a r t 2 a t 5407. ". . . The committee b e l i e v e s t h a t c l a r i f y i n g t h i s remedy would have a s a l u t a r y e f f e c t on t h e c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s o f p e r s o n s who may c o n t r a c t o u t work t o be done on t h e i r p r e m i s e s . " TR. a t 5408. The p h i l o s o p h y behind t h i s s e c t i o n was e x p r e s s e d by d e l e g a t e Dahood: "We a l l o w e d i n o u r b i l l of r i g h t s a n amendment t o a c l e a n and h e a l t h y environment. By t h i s p r o v i s i o n and t h i s amendment w e a r e going t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e worki n g man a s a f e environment. How d o e s t h e law s t a n d a t t h e moment? L e t m e t e l l you how i t s t a n d s . And some of t h e b i g v e s t e d c o r p o r a t e i n t e r e s t s a r e now u s i n g i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s b e c a u s e i t ' s reduced t h e i r c o s t of o p e r a t i o n . I f you have some p a r t i c u l a r tough job t h a t you want done on your p r e m i s e s where t h e r e may be some danger connected w i t h i t , what do you d o , you go o u t and h i r e an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r . D o n ' t have your employees i n t h a t d a n g e r o u s a r e a bec a u s e i f t h e y ' r e h u r t o r i f t h e r e ' s a n a c c i d e n t you have t o pay them Workmen's Compensation. So h e r e ' s t h e way you do i t now t h a t w e have immunity from t h e Supreme Court----an immunity n e i t h e r i n t e n d e d by t h e What you d o , p e o p l e nor i n t e n d e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . you h i r e someone on an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r b a s i s You and t h e i r employees a r e i n t h i s d a n g e r o u s a r e a . You don' t don' t have t o worry a b o u t s a f e t y anymore. You have t o do a n y t h i n g t o make your p r e m i s e s s a f e . d o n ' t have t o be concerned a b o u t a s a f e environment f o r t h e p e o p l e who a r e working t h e r e t o b e n e f i t your TR. a t 5417. interest." S i n c e r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n employees on a jobsite a r e afforded the f u l l legal redress afforded a l l members of s o c i e t y e x c e p t a s t o f e l l o w employees and t h e i r immediate employer. The g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r c i t e s West v. Morrison-Knudsen Co. (9th C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , 451 F.2d 493, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t c o n t r a c t u a l d u t i e s assumed by a g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r a r e n o t owed t o t h e employees of a s u b c o n t r a c t o r . I n West, t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t i n t e r p r e t e d U l m e n and h e l d t h a t , a l t h o u g h Montana r e c o g n i z e d c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s t o be n o n d e l e g a b l e , t h e b e n e f i t s of t h i s d o c t r i n e a p p l i e d o n l y t o t h i r d p e r s o n s and d i d n o t a p p l y t o employees of s u b c o n t r a c t o r s . The h o l d i n g i n West was made p r i o r t o a d o p t i o n of Montana's new c o n s t i t u t i o n . Following r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n such d i s t i n c t i o n s no l o n g e r e x i s t . The g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , a s a r e s u l t of i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Yellowstone County, o r i g i n a l l y had c o n t r o l of job s a f e t y . T h i s c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n c o u l d n o t be d e l e g a t e d . Ulmen v . Schwieger, s u p r a . Therefore, t h e general c o n t r a c t o r remained i n d i r e c t c o n t r o l and t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e S c a f f o l d i n g Act a p p l y . APPLICATION O SAFE PLACE STATUTE: F A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s s e c t i o n 50-71-201, t o general contractors. MCA, is applicable The Montana S a f e P l a c e s t a t u t e states: "Every employer s h a l l f u r n i s h a p l a c e of employment which i s s a f e f o r employees t h e r e i n and s h a l l f u r n i s h and u s e and r e q u i r e t h e u s e of such s a f e t y d e v i c e s and s a f e g u a r d s and s h a l l a d o p t and u s e such p r a c t i c e s , means, methods, o p e r a t i o n s , and p r o c e s s e s a s a r e r e a s o n a b l y a d e q u a t e t o r e n d e r t h e p l a c e of employment s a f e and s h a l l do e v e r y o t h e r t h i n g r e a s o n a b l y nece s s a r y t o p r o t e c t t h e l i f e and s a f e t y of employees." T h i s s t a t u t e was c o n s t r u e d i n Shannon. There we h e l d t h a t t h e term "employer" a s used i n s e c t i o n 50-71-201, MCA, embraces t h e term g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r t h e r e b y a f f o r d i n g p r o t e c t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e t o employees of s u b c o n t r a c t o r s . W s t o p p e d s h o r t of h o l d i n g t h e g e n e r a , - c o n t r a c t o r owed a e n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y t o t h o s e same employees b u t a f f i r m e d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s v e r d i c t on t h e b a s i s of a c t u a l c o n t r o l by t h e general contractor. W e have h e r e h e l d t h a t t h e law o f n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y i s available t o appellant. W now r e a f f i r m o u r h o l d i n g i n e Shannon and h o l d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e " s a f e p l a c e t o work s t a t u t e " c o v e r g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s and t h a t t h e d u t i e s mandated by t h e s t a t u t e a r e owed t o employees of a subcont r a c t o r i f , a s here, t h e r e i s a nondelegable duty a r i s i n g o u t of c o n t r a c t . THE WEIGHT O O.S.H.A. F REGULATIONS: I n t h i s c a s e t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r was c i t e d f o r v i o l a t i o n o f O.S.H.A. scaffolding. r e g u l a t i o n s i n connection with t h e s u b j e c t A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t such v i o l a t i o n s a r e a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e and c o n s t i t u t e n e g l i g e n c e p e r s e . A v i o l a t i o n of a s t a t u t e o r o r d i n a n c e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t t h e p l a i n t i f f from t h e i n j u r y i n c u r r e d i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d t o be n e g l i g e n c e p e r s e . W. P r o s s e r , Handbook of t h e Law of T o r t s , S e c t i o n 36 a t 2 0 0 ( 4 t h e d . 1 9 7 1 ) . Custer B r o a d c a s t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v . Brewer ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 163 Mont. 51-9, 522, 518 P.2d 2571 259. J u r i s d i c t i o n s a r e d i v i d e d on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a n e g l i g e n c e p e r s e ru1.e f o r t h e v i o l a t i o n of a r e g u l a t i o n . The g e n e r a l r u l e h a s been t o c o n s i d e r t h e v i o l a t i o n a s m e r e l y e v i d e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e . C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. Kell-ey v . Howard S . Wright ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 90 Wash.2d 323, 5 8 2 P.2d 500, h e l d t h a t v i o l a t i o n of a p p l i c a b l e O.S.H.A. regulations constituted negligence per se. W d e c l i n e t o h o l d s u c h v i o l a t i o n s t o be e negligence per se. R a t h e r such v i o l a t i o n s may be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i e r of f a c t a s e v i d e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e . CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: The g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r a r g u e s a p p e l l a n t was n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law. This a c t i o n arose p r i o r t o t h e adoption of c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e . The r e c o r d i s n o t f u l l y developed on t h e i s s u e of cont r i b u t o r y negligence. There i s e v i d e n c e t h a t a p p e l l a n t d i d not construct the faulty scaffolding. Further, appellant e i t h e r performed h i s work o r r i s k e d b e i n g t e r m i n a t e d . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s he i s n o t c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law. Shannon a t 4 4 0 , 441. CONCLUSION: I n summary we h o l d (1) t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , Kober C o n s t r u c t i o n , had a n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y t o comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Yellowstone County; (2) the p r o v i s i o n s of t h e S c a f f o l d i n g A c t , s e c t i o n 50-77-101, and t h e S a f e P l a c e s t a t u t e , 50-71-201, MCA, MCA, are applicable t o t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r who remained i n d i r e c t c o n t r o l under t h e d o c t r i n e of n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y ; ( 3 ) O.S.H.A. regula- t i o n s , and t h e v i o l a t i o n t h e r e o f , a r e o n l y e v i d e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e ; and ( 4 ) a p p e l l a n t was n o t g u i l t y of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of law. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment i n f a v o r of Kober C o n s t r u c t i o n . The c a s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t r i a l under t h e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s e n u n c i a t e d herein. C .f W e concur: ( 2u7 a ~ w Justices

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.