Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthy

Mississippi Supreme Court
829 So.2d 1, 2002 WL 1380931 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An owner or operator who hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries to the contractor's employees, unless the owner retains substantial de jure or de facto control over the aspect of the work that gave rise to the injury, in which case the owner is liable for its own negligence.

Facts:

Coho Resources, Inc. owned and operated an oil well and hired Smith Brothers, Inc., as an independent contractor to perform a 'workover' operation.
Kelvin McCarthy and Bobby Stroo were employees of Smith Brothers assigned to the workover crew.
The contract between Coho and Smith Brothers identified Smith Brothers as an independent contractor, yet Coho provided a mandatory step-by-step procedure for the work and reserved the right to dismiss Smith Brothers' personnel for safety violations.
Coho's on-site representative, Gary Cockrell, was described by witnesses as the 'boss' with ultimate authority to start and stop operations.
The workover process required the crew to stack approximately 135,000 pounds of pipe vertically on a wooden mat on the ground.
On December 5 and 6, 1995, it rained at the worksite, softening the soil.
Shortly before the accident on December 6, Smith Brothers' supervisor notified Cockrell that the racking board supporting the pipes was sinking into the ground, but Cockrell took no action.
The workover rig and derrick subsequently fell over, killing McCarthy and injuring Stroo.

Procedural Posture:

The administrator of Kelvin McCarthy's estate filed a wrongful death action against Coho Resources, Inc. and Gary Cockrell in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Jasper County.
Bobby and Patti Stroo filed a separate action against the same defendants in the same court for personal injury and loss of consortium.
The trial court consolidated the two actions.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding McCarthy's estate $3,500,000, Bobby Stroo $1,500,000, and Patti Stroo $10,000.
The defendants filed post-trial motions for JNOV, a new trial, and remittitur; the plaintiffs moved for prejudgment interest.
The trial court denied the JNOV motion but granted remittitur, reducing McCarthy's award to $2,750,000 and Stroo's to $840,000, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest.
Coho and Cockrell (appellants) appealed the final judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an oil well operator who retains substantial de facto control over the work performed by an independent contractor owe a duty of care to the contractor's employees, making the operator potentially liable for its own negligence?

Opinions:

Majority - Cobb, J.

Yes. An owner who retains substantial control over an independent contractor's work owes a duty of care to the contractor's employees and can be held liable for its own negligence. Although the general rule insulates an owner from liability for the negligence of its independent contractor, an exception applies when the owner maintains substantial de jure or de facto control over the work. Here, despite a contract stating Smith Brothers was an independent contractor, Coho exerted significant control by providing a mandatory step-by-step procedure, retaining the right to dismiss personnel for safety issues, and having an on-site 'company man' who was described as the 'boss' with ultimate authority. Coho's representative, Cockrell, was notified of the sinking racking board—a clear safety hazard—but failed to act. This evidence created a jury question as to Coho's direct negligence. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied Coho's motions for a directed verdict and JNOV on the issue of liability. However, the court reversed the award for loss of consortium due to insufficient evidence and the award for prejudgment interest because the damages were unliquidated.

Dissenting in part - McRae, P.J.

No, the court should not reverse the awards for loss of consortium and prejudgment interest. There was sufficient evidence in the record, including Bobby Stroo's testimony about his inability to perform household duties, to support the jury's modest $10,000 award for Patti Stroo's loss of consortium claim. Furthermore, Mississippi law and precedent allow for prejudgment interest even on unliquidated claims where the amount of loss is in dispute, and the trial judge acted within his statutory discretion to award it.

Dissenting in part - Diaz, J.

No, the court should not reverse the loss of consortium award. Great deference is owed to jury verdicts. Bobby Stroo’s testimony that he could no longer perform yard work as he had promised his wife, coupled with his pain and inability to play with his children, provided sufficient evidence from which the jury could permissibly infer that Patti Stroo suffered a loss of services and support. There is no requirement that the spouse claiming loss of consortium must testify personally to prove the claim.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the 'control exception' to the general rule of non-liability for the actions of independent contractors in Mississippi. The court emphasizes that the title 'independent contractor' in a contract is not dispositive; rather, the key inquiry is the degree of actual control (de facto control) exercised by the owner over the work. This decision serves as a crucial precedent for premises liability and tort cases in industrial settings, warning project owners that they cannot escape liability for their own negligence by contract if they simultaneously micromanage the contractor's performance and safety procedures.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthy (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature