From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sproston v. Quaker Oats Co.

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Mar 31, 2005
697 N.W.2d 127 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 04-0795.

March 31, 2005.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Robert E. Sosalla, Judge.

Steven Sproston argues the trial court erred in failing to give a nondelegable duty instruction to the jury. AFFIRMED.

David L. Baker, Cedar Rapids, for appellant until withdrawal; then Tim Semelroth of Riccolo Semelroth, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellants.

Christopher Bruns of Elderkin Pirnie, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.


Quaker Oats retained independent contractor Blahnik Construction to work on its Cedar Rapids production plant. Steven Sproston was an employee of Blahnik. He was injured when his air chisel, a tool similar to a jackhammer, cut through a cable carrying a live, 13,000 volt electrical line. Sproston sued Quaker, alleging the company was negligent in failing to inform Blahnik and its employees of "the special danger and peculiar risk" they faced and in failing to exercise reasonable care in the face of this risk. A jury returned a verdict for Quaker.

On appeal, Sproston argues that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on Quaker's "nondelegable duty" "to provide specified safeguards or precautions." I Iowa Civ. Jury Instructions 500.6 (1993); see Holliday v. Rain Hail L.L.C., 690 N.W.2d 59, 63 (Iowa 2004) (setting forth scope of review in challenge to jury instructions). Sproston claims this duty arose from Quaker's contract with Blahnik and, specifically, from the following language:

Sproston's proposed instruction was as follows:

500.6. Liability of Person Engaging Services Of Independent Contractor — Nondelegable Duty Imposed By Statute, Ordinance, or Contract. Persons who hire an independent contractor and who are under a duty to provide specified safeguards or precautions for the safety of others by contract cannot escape responsibility be delegating it to an independent contractor.

The defendant had a duty to provide requirements and instructions respecting hazards of all kinds.
A violation of this duty is negligence.

All work done in performance of this Agreement shall be in accordance with the requirements and instructions of the Owner respecting hazards of all kinds.

Quaker counters that the cited language does not create an express or an implied duty to provide requirements and instructions on all hazards. We agree with Quaker.

As a general rule, landowners who hire independent contractors have a non-contractual duty to take reasonable precautions "to keep the premises in a safe condition." 62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 457, at 762 (1990); see Greenwell v. Meredith Corp., 189 N.W.2d 901, 905-06 (Iowa 1971). The landowner must warn an independent contractor about "hidden defects or dangerous conditions" but, absent a contractual provision to the contrary, has no duty to warn an independent contractor about dangers inherent in the contractor's work or dangers of which the contractor is aware. See 62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 457, at 762.

The contract between Quaker and Blahnik did not expand or change this general duty. The contract specified that it was Blahnik's duty to "take all prudent and necessary precautions" to "protect all persons and the property of others from injury or damage." The contract also stated that Blahnik was obligated to "comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders," and

erect and maintain as required by existing conditions and progress of the work, all necessary safeguards for safety and protection of workers and the public, including posting danger signs and other warnings against hazards, promulgating safety regulations and notifying owners and users of adjacent utilities.

Under this plain language, Blahnik was responsible for safety. Although Blahnik was also required to comply with "requirements and instructions of the Owner respecting hazards of all kinds," the contract did not state that all such instructions and requirements had to come from Quaker. Cf. Lane v. Coe College, 581 N.W.2d 214, 217 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998) (finding error in failure to instruct jury on owner's nondelegable duty where contract expressly required owner to properly maintain and repair equipment, including steam kettle that spilled boiling water on employee of independent contractor). As the district court stated, "[T]he clear language of the contract imposes a duty on . . . [Blahnik] to follow any instructions Quaker may give them as it relates to hazards of any kind, but does not create a duty . . . to provide instructions to Blahnik." We conclude the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on any alleged nondelegable duty.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Sproston v. Quaker Oats Co.

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Mar 31, 2005
697 N.W.2d 127 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

Sproston v. Quaker Oats Co.

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN E. SPROSTON and SUSAN SPROSTON, Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Mar 31, 2005

Citations

697 N.W.2d 127 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)