 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Accu-Fab & Construction3/14/2000
ration. An agreement for indemnification, like any other contract, must be supported by consideration. Anderton v. Business Aircraft, Inc., 650 So. 2d 473, 476 (Miss. 1995). This is especially true where the occurrence for which indemnification is sought predates the indemnity agreement. This Court has found nothing in the record to indicate any consideration flowing to Accu-Fab so as to compel it to indemnify Anderson for Ladner's injuries.
. Anderson suggests that Accu-Fab did receive consideration for its agreement to indemnify Anderson for Ladner's injuries. The consideration suggested by Anderson was the contract price to be paid to Accu-Fab for work performed. While it is possible to execute a contract which indemnifies for prior events, such a contract must clearly set forth that intention. This is particularly true where the incident for which indemnification is sought has already occurred and is known to both parties prior to the execution of the contract.
. In this case, the contract does not include prior occurrences, nor does it specifically include the known event. Under these facts, we decline to find error on this issue.
VII. WHETHER THERE WAS A DUTY OWED TO LADNER BY ANDERSON AND ACCU-FAB.
. Anderson was intent on keeping construction on schedule. In an effort to do so, the metal roof was placed on the barge prior to Accu- Fab's installation of all of the stairs. As a result, Accu-Fab received permission from Anderson to cut the six foot hole in the roof to lower the stairs in place.
. By contract, Anderson had exclusive control of the construction site and all activities conducted there. All work was to be coordinated through and approved by Anderson. No changes or alterations, such as cutting the hole through which Ladner fell, were to be made without the knowledge and approval of Anderson.
. The supreme court in Oden Const. Co. v. McPhail, set out the general rule regarding the duty owed by a general contractor on a construction job:
The general rule is that a general contractor on a construction job who is in control of the premises is burdened with the duty to use ordinary care to provide a safe place for employees of a subcontractor to work . . . .
As part of supervising the work, it is the duty of the general contractor to oversee conditions in the work of each subcontractor so far as they affect the safety of the employees of the subcontractor. Oden Const. Co. v. McPhail, 228 So. 2d 586, 587 (Miss. 1969) (quoting Raich v. Aldon Const. Co., 276 P.2d 822, 827-28 (Cal. App. 1954)).
. Whether Anderson used ordinary care is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. The jury was presented with information which showed:
(1) the hole was cut with Anderson's knowledge and permission;
(2) that the hole was cut after Bracken and its employees (Ladner) had gone home for the weekend;
(3) that only Anderson had any material available to cover the hole;
(4) that Anderson generally covered holes and other dangerous conditions; and,
(5) there was a dispute as to whether Ladner's employer was informed of the dangerous conditions.
. These facts created a jury question. The record contains sufficient evidence upon which the jury could, and did, determine that Anderson breached its duty of reasonable care.
. This same is true of Accu-Fab, which actually cut the hole.
CONCLUSION
. Under the circumstances presented in the case at bar, the trial court properly denied the inclusion of Bracken in the apportionment of damages, as well as having made pro
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|