Rhodes v. Wright Brothers' Farm (IndCtApp 6/26/03)
Baker, Judge
Representatives of the Estate of Dwaine Gurtz appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Wright Brothers' Farm.
Specifically, the Estate contends that the Wrights were liable for the conditions on the Farm when Dwaine was struck and killed by a forklift. Concluding that the Wrights’ duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe manner did not include providing exterior lighting or other alleged “safety features” proffered by the Estate, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.This case is interesting in that it explains how Tyson Chicken works with its independent contractors. The Wright Farm here contracted with Tyson:
The contract specified Tyson’s responsibilities, which included owning the chickens, supplying their feed, and gathering them for processing. The contract also specifically detailed the Wrights’ duties, which included providing the facility, the labor, and the utilities used to raise the chickens. The relevant portion of the Farm consists of six chicken houses, with the area west of the first chicken house maintained by the Wrights as the driveway and loading area. Both the chicken houses and area surrounding the houses were built in accordance with Tyson regulations, which did not require exterior lighting.Here one of Tyson's truck drivers, Gurtz, was killed when a Tyson forklift with defective backup lights struck and killed him while backing up. The Estate claimed that the Wrights failed to illuminate the area around the chicken houses and maintain the forklift in a manner that would have protected Gurtz from the injuries that befell him. The Farm moved for summary judgment, claiming they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because illumination and maintenance of machinery were Tyson’s responsibilities and the Farm otherwise fulfilled their duty to maintain the Farm in a reasonably safe manner for business invitees. Following a hearing on the motion, summary judgment was entered for the Farm. The Estate appealed.When Tyson agents collect chickens, a specific procedure is followed in accordance with the contract. First, Tyson sends notice of their impending visit approximately three days before the chicken collection. Then, upon Tyson’s arrival, a representative of the Farm and the “catching foreman” walk through the house to remove the dead birds. This is the Wrights’ only responsibility during the catching procedure per the contract. Finally, the lights inside the chicken house are turned off, to avoid scaring the chickens, and the catching commences. The actual catching and loading process is Tyson’s responsibility as defined by the contract: "[Tyson] or its designee at its sole discretion shall have the right to schedule the broilers for processing. [Tyson] will notify the [Farm] of the scheduled time for pick-up as soon as practicable. [Tyson] shall catch, load and transport the broilers to a place designated by [Tyson] at no cost to the [Farm]."
The Court of Appeals said the sole issue is whether the Farms' duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions on the Farm for business invitees included providing exterior illumination and other “safety features.” It is undisputed, the Court said, that in his capacity as a Tyson employee, Gurtz was the Wrights’ business invitee:
The Wrights have a duty to maintain the Farm in a reasonably safe condition, yet that duty does not extend to obvious harm. The record shows that it was extremely dark on the morning of February 13, 2001, when the Tyson representatives met at the Farm. Under the contract, it was Tyson, and not the Wrights, that had all illumination responsibilities directly related to chicken catching. The very task of catching chickens is expedited by darkness so as not to “spook” the chickens, as both parties testified. Furthermore, the record indicates that it was Tyson who required the lights to be off during the catching. Consequently, the responsibility for any lighting deficiency should rest with Tyson. Moreover, we note that the accident took place at 3:00 a.m. under dark, foggy conditions. All those present on the Farm that morning knew that visibility was reduced. There were no complaints about lighting on any prior occasions and the Tyson crew manager, who bore the responsibility to maintain machinery used in the chicken catching process, knew of the forklift’s mechanical defects. Essentially, neither the Farm nor the Wrights had any responsibility for the forklift’s maintenance. * * *Posted by Marcia Oddi at July 22, 2003 08:30 AM
[T]he contract ultimately defined the Wrights’ duties as chicken producers when they engaged with Tyson representatives. Under these circumstances, we must conclude that Tyson controlled the chicken catching procedure pursuant to the terms of the contract and the Wrights’ duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe manner did not extend to providing exterior lighting or alternative safety measures. Thus, no breach of duty occurred and we find that summary judgment was appropriately entered for the Wrights. Judgment affirmed.