Stepanek v. Kober Construction

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: February 20, 1981

Decided: March 11, 1 9 8 1

Filed: MAR 1 1 19@
Mr. 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.

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. 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

Court .
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 . Harland v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont.

447, 450, 548 P . 2 d 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 . Rennick v. Hoover ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

Mont. , 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; ( 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-

77-101, MCA; ( 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,

MCA; 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 sub-

c 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.) 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

se. 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. (19791, Mont.

, 593 P.2d 438, 4 4 1 , 36 St.Rep. 632, 636; 2 R e s t a t e m e n t

of T o r t s 2d, s e c t i o n 4 1 4 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . 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. Bank v .

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 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 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, firm
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 immediate c o n t r o l
of t h e work i n v o l v i n g t h e u s e of scaffolding."
G r e a t F a l l s Nat. - 154 Mont.
- Bank, 336, 345, 463 P.2d
326, 331.

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, MCA, and

s e c t i o n 50-77-104, MCA, 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,

R.C.M. 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. ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 156 Mont. 368, 480

P.2d 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
low employees - - immediate employer who h i r e d
and h i s
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 Compensa-
t i o n Law." TR. of t h e Mont. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Conven-
t 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 work-
i 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 be-
c 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
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 . What you d o ,
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
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 have t o worry a b o u t s a f e t y anymore. You don' t
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 . You
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
interest." TR. a t 5417.

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, MCA, is applicable

t o general contractors. 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 nec-
e 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 subcon-

t 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. 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

scaffolding. 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 . Kell-ey v . Howard S . Wright

C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. ( 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 con-

t 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, MCA,

and t h e S a f e P l a c e s t a t u t e , 50-71-201, 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