In Tinsley-Williamson ex rel. Tinsley v. A.R. Mays
Construction, Inc., 195 N.E.3d 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), the Court of
Appeals of Indiana affirmed partial summary judgment in favor of A.R. Mays
Construction, Inc. (“A.R. Mays”), a general contractor, on the ground that
neither it nor any of its subcontractors had contracted with the company that
employed the Plaintiff Ethan Tinsley (“Mr. Tinsley”). Therefore, the Court held that A.R. Mays owed
no duty to Mr. Tinsley.
A.R. Mays was hired by American Multi-Cinema Entertainment (“AMC”)
as general contractor for a new theater.
The contract required A.R. Mays to maintain safety precautions and designate
an employee whose duty it was to prevent accidents. Separately, AMC also contracted with Everything
Cinema to construct new theater screens and sound systems at the same location. In turn, Everything Cinema employed Mr.
Tinsley. A.R. Mays was not a party to
the contract between AMC and Everything Cinema and thus had no contractual
directly or indirectly with Everything Cinema or, by extension, Mr. Tinsley.
While working for Everything Cinema on the project, Mr.
Tinsley fell from a twenty-two-foot tall, unsecured scaffolding structure with
a broken caster. Mr. Tinsley was also
not wearing any safety gear, and as a result of his unsecured fall, he was
seriously injured.
Mr. Tinsley sued A.R. Mays on the ground that its
contractual duty of care under its prime contract with AMC extended to him as
well. A.R. Mays defended on the basis
that Mr. Tinsley was neither its employee nor its subcontractor, nor an employee
or subcontractor of any of its subcontractors or sub-subcontractors, and
therefore its contractual duty of care did not extend to him. A.R. Mays was awarded partial summary
judgment on this ground, and Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment ruling. The general rule under Indiana law is that a
general contractor is not held liable for the negligence of a subcontractor, subject
to several exceptions. Mr. Tinsley argued
that A.R. Mays undertook a broader duty by contract and thus assumed a duty in
tort that reached to him as well. The
Court held, however, that this situation involved a wrinkle that rolled in A.R.
Mays’ favor: Mr. Tinsley was employed by an entity hired independently by
AMC. Therefore, the Plaintiff did fit
into the descending chain of subcontractors to whom A.R. Mays owed the
contractual duty. Consequently, A.R. Mays
did not owe the Plaintiff a duty under its separate contract with AMC.
Duties assumed by contract can be far-reaching, but this case illustrates that such duties are not unlimited. The duty does not necessarily reach to every person on a jobsite just because the general contractor controls the jobsite, and a worker who seeks the benefit of a contractual duty provision must show that the contractual duty includes him in its reach.
