Sinclair Refining Company v. George L. Howell
1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3864, 222 F.2d 637 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant waives a defense by failing to specifically deny the plaintiff's relevant averment in its answer or by omitting the issue from the controlling pre-trial order. Substantively, a person who assists in an operation is owed a duty of reasonable care, and is not a mere volunteer, if they have a business interest in the work's timely and proper completion.
Facts:
- Hayward Howell was in the process of opening a new general store and gasoline filling station.
- Hayward's 19-year-old brother, John Arthur Howell, was in his 'general employ' on the day of the incident.
- Sinclair Refining Company sent its employee, A. O. Hall, to supervise and assist in the installation of a 22-foot, 250-300 pound metal light pole at the new station.
- As Hall began hoisting the pole with a truck-mounted frame, his helper, Hargrove, found the base too heavy to manage alone and called for help.
- John Arthur Howell came out of the store to assist, joining Hargrove and another individual in steadying the base of the pole.
- Hall was aware of John Arthur's assistance and gave instructions to the group on how to maneuver the pole.
- Hall knew there were high-voltage power lines directly overhead and acknowledged his responsibility to ensure the pole was erected safely, knowing contact would be fatal.
- While the group maneuvered the base, the top of the metal pole, guided by Hall, came into contact with the high-voltage line, electrocuting and killing John Arthur Howell.
Procedural Posture:
- The father of John Arthur Howell filed a wrongful death action against Sinclair Refining Co. in federal district court, alleging negligence and wanton misconduct.
- The court ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint to specifically aver that the deceased was not subject to the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act.
- The defendant filed an answer that did not specifically deny the plaintiff's averment regarding the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- A pre-trial order was entered that did not list the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act as an issue in controversy.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing damages at $30,000.
- The district court denied the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and for judgment non obstante veredicto.
- The district court also denied the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the claim that the verdict was excessive.
- The defendant, Sinclair Refining Co., appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 a defendant waive the defense that a claim is barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act by failing to deny the plaintiff's averment that the Act does not apply, and is a person who assists in work being performed on his brother's property a mere volunteer to whom a lesser duty of care is owed?
Opinions:
Majority - Rives, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant procedurally waives a defense by failing to properly raise it in the pleadings and pre-trial order, and a person with a legitimate interest in the work being performed is owed a duty of reasonable care. The defendant's argument that the claim was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act was waived. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), averments in a complaint are admitted when not denied. The defendant failed to deny the plaintiff's averment that the deceased was not subject to the Act, thereby admitting it. Furthermore, the issue was not included in the pre-trial order, which under Rule 16 controls the course of the action. The defendant's alternative theory that the deceased was a 'loaned employee' also fails, as its own agent testified he did not hire or agree to pay the deceased. Substantively, the trial court correctly instructed the jury that if John Arthur Howell had an interest in the work 'as distinguished from the mere curiosity or officiousness which characterizes a mere inter-meddler,' then the defendant owed him a duty of care not to be negligent.
Concurring - Cameron, Circuit Judge
Concurs in the result only, without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case serves as a crucial lesson on the unforgiving nature of federal pleading rules, demonstrating how significant substantive defenses can be waived through procedural missteps. The court's application of FRCP 8(d) (failure to deny constitutes admission) and FRCP 16 (pre-trial order controls) underscores the importance of precise and thorough pleading for litigators. Substantively, the decision clarifies the duty of care owed to individuals who are not employees but assist in a work project; it establishes that having a tangible interest in the outcome of the work elevates one's status beyond that of a 'mere volunteer' or 'meddler,' thus entitling them to protection from negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Sinclair Refining Company v. George L. Howell