Summary 2010 WY 31

Summary of Decision issued March 22, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Singer v. New Tech Engineering L.P.

Citation: 2010 WY 31

Docket Number: S-09-0024

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge.

Representing Appellant Singer: Mark L. Carman of Carman Law Office, PC, Billings, Montana; and Cody L. Balzer of Balzer Law Firm, PC, Loveland, Colorado.

Representing Appellee New Tech Engineering: Roger E. Shumate and James C. Worthen of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: After suffering debilitating injuries while working on a drilling rig owned by Caza Drilling (Caza) in northeastern Wyoming, Leonard Singer brought a negligence case against New Tech Engineering (New Tech), the company who hired safety coaches to provide “safety services” on the rig.

Employee/agent or independent contractor: The Court has stated that in regard to determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor, the overriding consideration is the employer’s right to control the means and manner of the work. Harrington (the safety coach) was provided no benefits from New Tech, no contract existed between the two, no deductions for federal income taxes were made and the ultimate control came from Caza. Caza controlled Harrington’s schedule, provided a truck, on-site living provisions and an occasional computer. In addition, Caza had ultimate control over the hiring and firing of safety consultants. The Court considered who had the right of control over the means and manner of the work as differentiated from control over the end product of the work to be performed. Typically, when a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is interested only in the results of the work and does not direct the details of how the work is performed. The record supported the contention that Caza and not New Tech had control over the means and manner of the work. Caza had the ultimate decision over who it selected as its safety consultants.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 429: Singer next argued that because Caza relied on New Tech to supply “safety services,” New Tech was liable to Singer. The Court noted that it discussed this Restatement section only once before and in a medical malpractice action. Research showed that § 429 is typically applied in the medical context but sometimes is applicable in other circumstances. The Court concluded that Caza relied on the coaches for safety services and only relied on New Tech to provide the names of safety coaches.
Oral contract: Singer contended that New Tech assumed affirmative safety duties when it agreed to provide safety services. The deposition testimony that Singer relied upon was testimony as to the safety coach’s duties and not New Tech’s duties. Caza retained control of its own safety program evidenced by its use of New Tech to place a safety coach. Caza never contracted orally or otherwise with New Tech to provide safety services.
Non-delegable duty: The Court agreed with the district court that the safety program was specifically a Caza program. New Tech provided no instruction, guidance, or supervision regarding safety issues on the rig. New Tech was a placement service.

Conclusion: The Court found no question of material fact regarding whether the safety coach was an employee or independent contractor – the record showed that he was an independent contractor. Also, there was no indication that Restatement § 429 imposed any liability whatsoever on New Tech. New Tech did not assume any affirmative duties regarding safety, nor is New Tech responsible for Singer’s injuries due to any “non-delegable” duty – no such duty on the part of New Tech existed.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yjlalnc .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]