WPC _DIC"vIC#8km_6&36˒s#.B!ՙh~a| *);u {ώW|3Yba2d  wPs ./ 7trƑݫ%="!Vf;°gvwHHU(#ґ ʽ+"5q9$Y ,cֹ ~xlv蟙],T{o05$ޒ(`Pit-c~ 7gqV|dU[s.tԺG8<7mdnquݲtF::'O݈Xj@"Y e0\KHxb HqNy[Mq?>}0}TWIlό🴒'B2#;OY)Ob#\ % ^ # 0/ U#N w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a ' 1NtUNv 0cE')l! U> 1u 72KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKb}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} 0 Bpp 0 D31 D-d 0K AS/ 0 0D AHP LaserJet 5,,,,0u) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularfdJ)bk1< C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(;3$2#  0  .3  0   R$      1  D   _TysoneventuallydirectedCentex,viathechangeorderprocessprovidedintheircontract,tocovertheseholes. b R$      2  D   _ItisuncleartowhichcompanyandonwhatdateCoreslabrelinquishedcontroloftheroofarea.However,  itisundisputedthatCoreslabnolongerhadanycontrolovertheareainwhichtheaccidentoccurred.  R$      3  D   _Mr.JohnsonalsofiledsuitagainstCityRoofingCompanyandCaseyElectricCompany.Thesepartiesare  notinvolvedinthisappeal.\  `&Times New Roman  R$      4  D   _Thecourthasalsoemphasizedthatitisthe right tocontrol,nottheamountofcontrolactuallyexercised,that  isimportant. SeeStrattonv.UnitedInterMountainTel.Co. ,695S.W.2d947,950(Tenn.1985)(citing Wooten x Transp.,Inc.v.Hunter ,535S.W.2d858(Tenn.1976)).3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3)$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3)$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   September19,2000Session X XX #XX#_DONNIE_ԀWAYNEJOHNSON,JR.v._CENTEX_Ԁ_FORCUM_Ԁ_LANNOM_,INC.,  ` etal.XX  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Obion_ԀCounty 0  @@No.7714WilliamB._Acree_,Jr.,Judge  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W200000072_COA_ԄR9CVFiledNovember7,2000 ?  AV) ` dE<` A   XdXXX  ThisappealarisesfromaninjurybyWorkerwhofellthroughaholeintheroofwhileworkingon  aconstructionsite.WorkerbroughtsuitagainsttheOwner,theGeneralContractorandBuilder,who   throughitsconstructionofprecastconcretepanelshadcreatedthehole.Thetrialcourtgranted  OwnerandGeneralContractorsummaryjudgmentonthebasisthatbothwereactinginthecapacity  ofageneralcontractorandwerethusexemptfromsuitundertheworkerscompensationstatutes. ~ Builder,eventhroughitnolongerhadcontroloftheareawhereWorkerwasinjured,wasdenied j summaryjudgmentonthebasisthatOSHAregulationscreatedanon_delegable_Ԁdutytoprevent V injuries.WeaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantingofsummaryjudgmenttoOwnerandGeneral B Contractor.WereversethetrialcourtsdenialofsummaryjudgmentforBuilder,findingthatOSHA .~ regulationsdonotcreateadutyforBuilder. j    #XXXXd##XX#XX Tenn.R.App.P.9InterlocutoryAppeal;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinpart; 6 Reversedinpart;andRemanded  &   #X #XX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._ !  andFranklin_Murchison_,Sp.J.,joined. "! JeffreyA._Garrety_,Jackson,Tennessee,and_Tanda_ԀR._Grisham_,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellant $# _Donnie_ԀWayneJohnson,Jr. v% $ _DeWitt_ԀM.Shy,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,andG.BaileyLeopard,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe V'"& appellant,_Coreslab_ԀStructures,Inc. F(#' CarlWyatt,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,andJamesF.Horner,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees, &*v%) _Centex_Ԁ_Forcum_Ԁ_Lannom_,Inc.andTysonFoods,Inc. +f&* U  -6)-  OPINION #XX #XX  #XXH#XXXdXXX       In1996,TysonFoods,Inc.(Tyson)beganconstructionofapoultryfoodproductsplantin  _Obion_ԀCounty,Tennessee.Itcontractedwithseveralothercompaniestocompletevarioustasksat x theplant,aswellasplanningtodosomework inhouse.Amongthosecompaniescontractedto d workonthesitewas_Centex_Ԁ_Forcum_Ԁ_Lannom_,Inc.(_Centex_),whichwasactingasageneral P  contractorontheconstructionofthepoultryprocessingfacility._Centex_Ԁhired_J.E._ԀCampbell <  (Campbell)asasubcontractortocompletenecessaryworkontheprojectsite.Alsoworkingonthe ( x sitewas_Coreslab_ԀStructures(Okla),Inc.(_Coreslab_)._Coreslab_Ԁwastoerectprecastconcretepanels  d onthesiteunderaseparatecontractwithTyson.  P    While_Coreslab_Ԁwascompletingitswork,itwasdiscoveredthattheerectionofthepanelsleft (  severaldangerousholesintheroof.Astheholesweredestinedtobefilledbyequipmentduringthe   construction,theyrequiredatemporarycovertomaketheareasafe.Communicationbetween   Tyson,_Coreslab_Ԁand_Centex_Ԁrevealedthatthecoveringoftheseholeswasnotaddressedinany   contract.WhileTysondidrequesttheholestobecovered,boththedateoftherequestandwhether   Tysoninitiallydirected_Coreslab_Ԁor_Centex_Ԁtoperformtheassignmentisdisputed.  #  1      ׀Itisundisputed, t however,that_Coreslab_Ԁfinisheditsinstallationworkontheroofandturnedcontroloftheareaover ` to_Centex_Ԁand/orTyson.X  #  2      ׀Atsomepointaftertheturnoverdate,_Donnie_ԀWayneJohnson,Jr.,an L employeeofCampbell,fellthroughoneoftheseholesontotheconcrete30feetbelow,suffering 8 seriousinjuries. $t   Afterhisinjuries,Mr.JohnsonfiledsuitagainstTyson,_Centex_,and_Coreslab_.  #  3      ׀Tysonand L _Centex_Ԁbothfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisthattheywereactinginthecapacity 8 ofageneralcontractoratthesite,andwerethusimmunefromliabilityundertheworkers $ compensationstatutes._Coreslab_Ԁalsofiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,arguingthatitowedno  dutytoMr.Johnson,wasnottheproximatecauseofhisinjury,and/oranydutiesthatwereowedto  Mr.Johnsonhadbeendelegatedortransferredby_Coreslab_Ԁtootherparties.Thetrialcourtgranted  boththeTysonand_Centex_Ԁmotionsforsummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionof  _Coreslab_,citingOSHAregulationswhichthecourtbelievedcreatedanontransferableduty. p _Coreslab_Ԁfiledamotionforaninterlocutoryappealofthecourtsdenialofitsmotion.Mr.Johnson \  filedamotionforaninterlocutoryappealofthecourtsgrantingofthemotiontodismiss_Centex_Ԁand H! Tyson.Bothofthesemotionsweregrantedbythiscourtandtheappealswereconsolidatedintothe 4"  casenowbeforethecourt.  #p!  $H #   Theissuesasweperceivethemareasfollows:   (5h83"3"    3d#25h  1  .3  0 `   Wasthetrialcourtcorrectingranting_Centex_smotionforsummaryjudgment?3d##݌` (#` (# Ќ    "3"    3$25h  2  .3  0 `   WasthetrialcourtcorrectingrantingTysonsmotionforsummaryjudgment?3$$݌`` (#` (# Ќ    3.8 ` Wasthetrialcourtcorrectinitsdenialof_Coreslab_smotionfor 8  summaryjudgment?$ t` x` x Withrespecttothecourtslegalconclusions,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionof  L  correctness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,Furn,and_Ginsburg_,  8  P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Asummaryjudgmentis $  appropriateonlyifnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexist,andthedefendantisentitledtoa   judgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.Acourtmustconsidertheevidenceinalightmost   favorabletothenonmovingpartyandallowallreasonableinferencesinitsfavor. SeeByrdv.Hall ,   847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).     _Centex_ \    0  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection506108(a)states:4(#(# 8  S_ \ STherightsandremedieshereingrantedtoanemployeesubjecttotheWorkers' _ CompensationLawonaccountofpersonalinjuryordeathbyaccident,includinga 'w minorwhetherlawfullyorunlawfullyemployed,shallexcludeallotherrightsand ? remediesofsuchemployee,suchemployee'spersonalrepresentative,dependentsor  nextofkin,atcommonlaworotherwise,onaccountofsuchinjuryordeath.   Tenn.CodeAnn.506108(a)(1999).Tennesseecourtshavedeterminedthatthisstatuteprecludes  anyactionbyaninjuredworkeragainsthisemployeroutsidetheboundsofthestatute. See } _McAlister_Ԁv.MethodistHosp.ofMemphis ,550S.W.2d240(Tenn.1977). E   Section506113oftheTennesseeCodeexpandstheliabilityofgeneralcontractorsto {! requirethemtoprovideworkerscompensationcoveragetotheemployeesoftheirsubcontractors. C"  8  (a)Aprincipal,orintermediatecontractor,orsubcontractorshallbeliablefor &$v" compensationtoanyemployeeinjuredwhileintheemployofanyofthe $> # subcontractorsoftheprincipal,intermediatecontractor,orsubcontractorandengaged %!$ uponthesubjectmatterofthecontracttothesameextentastheimmediateemployer.~&!%   8   ` (b)Anyprincipal,orintermediatecontractor,orsubcontractorwhopays '"& compensationundertheforegoingprovisionsmayrecovertheamountpaid,fromany a(#' personwho,independentlyofthissection,wouldhavebeenliabletopay ))y$( compensationtotheinjuredemployee,orfromanyintermediatecontractor.)A%)   8   ` (c)Everyclaimforcompensationunderthissectionshallbeinthefirst  +\&* instancepresentedtoandinstitutedagainsttheimmediateemployer,butsuch +$'+ proceedingsshallnotconstituteawaiveroftheemployee'srightstorecover  compensationunderthischapterfromtheprincipalorintermediatecontractor; x provided,thatthecollectionoffullcompensationfromone(1)employershallbar @ recoverybytheemployeeagainstanyothers,norshalltheemployeecollectfromall X atotalcompensationinexcessoftheamountforwhichanyofthecontractorsis   liable.    S#XXXXd#XdXXXTenn.CodeAnn.506113(1999).Tennesseecourtshavefoundthatthisexpansionofageneral   contractorsliabilitydoesprovidethegeneralcontractorwithabenefit.Ourcourtshaveruledthat   theimmunityprovidedunder#XXXXd 6#XdXXXsection506108(a)followstherequirementtoprovideworkers    compensationcoverage#XXXXd]7#XdXXX.Thus,generalcontractorsareimmunefromanyactioninvolvingonthejob    injuriesbroughtoutsideoftheworkerscompensationstatutes. SeeManningv._Rentenback_Ԁ_Engg_ ~  Co. ,625S.W.2d718(Tenn.Ct.App.1981). j  #XXXXd 8#XdXXX  WhileMr.Johnsondoesnotdisputethat_Centex_Ԁwasthegeneralcontractoronthesite,he B  arguesthat_Centex_Ԁassumedtheresponsibilitytocovertheholethroughwhichhefellinaseparate .~  contractoutsidethescopeofitsoriginalcontractwithTyson,and,assuch,wasnotactinginits j capacityasgeneralcontractor.Wedisagree.AstudyoftheoriginalTyson_Centex_Ԁcontractreveals V thatArticle13,entitled ChangesintheWork,statesthat [_t]he_Ԁowner,withoutinvalidatingthis B agreement,mayorderchangesinthework,additions,deletionsormodifications.Indeed,Tyson . submittedawrittenchangeorderto_Centex_Ԁdirectingthatcompanytocovertheholethroughwhich  theplaintifffell.Itisobviousthatthechangeordertocovertheseholesrepresentedanagreement  wellwithintheTyson_Centex_Ԁcontract.As_Centex_Ԁwasthegeneralcontractoronsite,andits  responsibilitytocovertheholesfellwithinitsdutiesasgeneralcontractorundertheTyson_Centex_  contract,wefindthat_Centex_Ԁisimmunefromsuitundertheworkerscompensationstatutes.As z such,weaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantingofsummaryjudgmentto_Centex_. f   Tyson >       Inordertodeterminewhatliability,ifany,TysonhastoMr.Johnson,itisnecessaryto f addresswhetherTysonwasactinginthecapacityofageneralcontractorduringtheconstructionof  R itspoultryfoodproductsplant.IfTysonwasactingasageneralcontractorontheproject,thenitwill  > beimmunefromsuitforthereasonsalreadydiscussed.IfTysonwasnotageneralcontractoronthe !*  site,ithadnoimmunityandthetrialcourtincorrectlygrantedsummaryjudgmentinTysonsfavor. "! Thus,Tysonsrelationshipwith_Centex_,andwhetherTysonwasactingasageneralcontractoratthe #" site,is_dispositive_Ԁinthiscase. $#   Thetestfordeterminingwhetherapartywasactingasageneralcontractoriswell v&!% established.InTennessee,severalfactorsareconsideredindeterminingwhetherapartyqualifies b'"& asageneralcontractor.Asstatedbythesupremecourt,thefactorsincludethe (1)righttocontrol N(#' theconductofwork;(2)rightoftermination;(3)methodofpayment;(4)whetherallegedemployee :)$( furnisheshisownhelpers;(5)whetherallegedemployeefurnisheshisowntools;and(6)whether &*v%) oneisdoingworkforanother. _Stratton_Ԁv.UnitedInterMountainTel.Co. ,695S.W.2d947,950 +b&* (Tenn.1985)(citing Carverv.SpartaElec._Sys_. ,690S.W.2d218(Tenn.1985)(furthercitations +N'+ omitted)).Whilenosinglefactorisnecessarily_dispositive_,therighttocontroltheworkis  consideredthemostimportantfactor.  #  4      ׀ Seeid.    Wefind _Stratton_Ԁv.UnitedInterMountainTel.Co. ,695S.W.2d947(Tenn.1985),tobe p instructiveinthiscase.In _Stratton_ ,UnitedInterMountainTelephoneCompanywassuedbya \ workeremployedbythecompanywhowasinjuredwhileworkingonautilitypole.Thesupreme H  courtinthatcasefoundthatthecompanysabilitytodemandtheremovalofanyemployeewith 4  whomitwasnotsatisfied,aswellastherighttodirecttheorderinwhichthecontractedworkwas  p done,wasconclusiveproofofthecompanysrighttocontrolthework. Seeid. Inthiscase,Tyson  \ hadthosesamerightsunderitscontractwith_Centex_.  H    Tysonhadseveraladditionalrightsandresponsibilitiesunderitscontract.Tysonrequired   _Centex_Ԁto performnoportionoftheWorkrequiring_submittal_Ԁandreviewofshopdrawings,product   data,samplesorothersimilar_submittals_Ԁuntilsuch_submittals_Ԁ[had]beenapprovedbytheProject   Manager,aTysonemployee.Tysonrequired_Centex_ԀtosubmitascheduleofworkwhichTysons   projectmanagercouldrequiretoberevisedaccordingto_Centex_sworkcompletioninrelationtothe   entireconstructionproject.Tysonsprojectmanager  alsohadtherighttovisitthesiteanddetermine l iftheworkwasbeingdoneinamannerconsistentwiththecontract.Tysonrequired_Centex_Ԁandits X subcontractorstofollowTysonssafetyprecautionsandprograms. D   Tysonsprojectmanagerhadtheauthority tointerpretanddecidemattersconcerning l performanceofthework,aswellastheabilitytorejectworkwhichdidnotconformtoTysons X standards.Tysonhadtherighttoperformworkrelatedtotheprojectwithitsownworkers.Tyson D evenhadtherighttoterminate_Centex_scontractand takepossessionofthesiteandofallmaterials 0 andequipmenttobeincorporatedinthework,tools,constructionequipmentandmachinerythereon  ownedbytheContractor[_Centex_]and[to]finishtheworkbywhatevermeansandmethodsTyson  desired.Withsuchlanguage,itisclearthatTysonhadthe right tocontrolalmosteveryaspectof  theconstructionofthepoultryprocessingplant.AsTysonhadsuchinclusivecontroloverthe  project,itiscleartothiscourtthatTysonwasactinginthecapacityofageneralcontractor.Thus, | forthereasonsalreadydiscussedpreviously,Tysonisimmunefromsuitthroughtheimmunity h providedundertheworkerscompensationstatutes.Thetrialcourtwascorrectinitsdecisionto T  grantTysonsummaryjudgment,andweherebyaffirmthatdecision. @!   _Coreslab_ #h!      Initsorderdenying_Coreslab_srequestforsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourtfoundOSHA $@ # regulationscreatedadutyfor_Coreslab_Ԁtoprotect workersandthatthisdutywasnon_delegable_. %,!$ InTennessee,aviolationofsuchregulationsconstitutesnegligenceperse. See_Bellamy_Ԁv.Federal &"% ExpressCorp. ,749S.W.2d31,34(Tenn.1988).Usingthisrationale,thetrialcourtdenied '#& _Coreslab_smotionforsummaryjudgment.Inorderforthiscourttoreviewthatdecision,itis  necessaryforustoexaminethevariousdutiessetforthintheOSHAregulationsastheyrelateto  _Coreslab_.    UnderOSHAregulations,anemployerhastwoduties. ` 8  0`     (a)Eachemployer8 ` `  8   ` (1)shallfurnishtoeachofhisemployeesemploymentandaplaceof $ t employmentwhicharefreefromrecognizedhazardsthatarecausingorarelikelyto  ` causedeathorseriousphysicalharmtohisemployees; L    8   ` (2)shallcomplywithoccupationalsafetyandhealthstandardspromulgated  8  underthischapter.$    29U.S.C.654(1999&Supp.2000).     Thefirstdutyisoftenreferredtoasthe generaldutyofanemployer,whilethesecondis   toreferredtoasthe specificduty.Eachdutyimposesdifferentrequirementsontheemployer. p  Thegeneraldutyclauserequireseveryemployertousereasonablecaretoprotecthisown \ employeesfromrecognizedhazardslikelytocausedeathorseriousbodilyinjury,regardlessof H whethertheemployercontrolstheworkplace,isresponsibleforthehazard,orhasthebest 4 opportunitytoabatethehazard. Ellisv.ChaseCommunications,Inc. ,63F.3d473,477(6thCir.  p 1995)(citing Tealv.E.I._DuPont_Ԁde_Nemours_ԀandCo. ,728F.2d799,804(6thCir.1984)).The  \  generaldutyclausehasbeeninterpretedasageneral catchallclausewhichCongressintended H tooperateasanexpressionofthereasonablecarewhichevery employeroweshisownemployees . 4  Seeid. at480.Inotherwords,thegeneraldutyclauseonlycharges_Coreslab_Ԁwithageneraldutyto   protectitsownemployees,nottheemployeesofanother.SinceMr.Johnsonwasnotanemployee   of_Coreslab_,thecompanyowedhimnodutyunderthe generaldutyclause. x     #XXXXd9#XdXXXOntheotherhand,  the specialdutyclauseisintended forthespecialbenefitofall  employees,includingtheemployeesofanindependentcontractor,whoperformworkatanother l employersworkplace. Id. However, theclassofemployerswhooweadutyunderthespecific X  dutyclauseisdefinedwithreferencetocontroloftheworkplaceandopportunitytocomplywith D! OSHAregulations. Id .at477.Thus,controloftheworkplace#XXXXdd#XdXXXԀdeterminesifanemployerowesa 0"  specialdutytoeveryoneperformingworkatthatlocation.Itisundisputedthat_Coreslab_Ԁhadno #l! controlovertheareainwhichMr.Johnsonwasinjured,havingpreviouslyturnedovercontrolto $X" Tysonor_Centex_Ԁaftercompletingitswork.Assuch,_Coreslab_Ԁnolongerhadanyspecialdutiesto $D # anyworkerswhowerepresentinthatarea. %0!$   SinceMr.Johnsonwasinjuredinanareaoutsideof_Coreslab_scontrol,_Coreslab_Ԁowedhim '#& nodutyunderthespecialdutyclause.Additionally,asalreadydiscussed,_Coreslab_ԀowedMr. (#' Johnsonnodutyunderthegeneraldutyclause.Thus,itiscleartothiscourtthattherearenoOSHA )$(  regulations#XXXXd6g#XdXXXwhichimposeanydutyon_Coreslab_ԀtoprotectMr.Johnson.Assuch,thetrialcourterred |*%) initsdenialof_Coreslab_smotionforsummaryjudgment.Weherebyreversethetrialcourtsruling  denying_Coreslab_smotionforsummaryjudgment.     WenotethatMr.Johnsonhasraisedseveralclaimsastocommonlawnegligence.Fora t commonlawnegligenceactiontoavoidsummaryjudgment,severalfactorsmustbedetermined, ` foremostofwhichisthefindingofadutybetweentheinjuredandthedefendant.Wecanfindno L  suchduty.Mr.Johnsonnotesthatthetrialcourt,initsorderdenying_Coreslab_smotionfor 8  summaryjudgment,foundsubstantialevidencethattheholeswerenegligentlycovered.However, $ t _Coreslab_Ԁdidnotcovertheseholes,and,assuch,anynegligenceintheircoveringhasnobearingon  ` thiscase.Mr.Johnsonalsocitesaseriesofcasesfindingadutytouseduecaretoreducethedanger  L  ofinjuryifadangerousconditionexists.Uponourreview,wenotethateachofthesecases  8  addressestheownerand/oroccupieroftheproperty._Coreslab_,atthetimetheinjuryoccurred,was $  neitherandthusthesecaseshavenobearingonourdecision.     Conclusion        Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtinitsgrantingof p summaryjudgmenttoboth_Centex_ԀandTyson.Wereversethetrialcourtsdenialof_Coreslab_s \ motionforsummaryjudgmentandherebygrantthatmotion.Costsonappealareassessedagainst H theappellant,_Donnie_ԀWayneJohnson,Jr.,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueif 4 necessary.  p #XXXXdk#   `     h     ___________________________________ ,    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE