Shackleford, Phillips & Ratcliff, P.A. has joined PPGMR Law, PLLC.

call 501.603.9000 menu

Contractor's Duty of Ordinary Care May Extend to Equipment Used By Others

The Arkansas Court of Appeals recently indicated that the duty of ordinary care may require a contractor to ensure that its equipment left on a job site, when knowingly used by others, causes no harm.

The case involved a church renovation project that lacked a general contractor.  In 2009, the First United Methodist Church of Ozark ("Church") contracted directly with Mid-Continental Restoration Co., Inc. as the painting and drywall contractor and K&K Electric, Inc. as the electrical contractor in a renovation project.  The Church later brought in Harness Roofing, Inc. to provide an estimate on repairing a leaking roof.  In July 2010, the church was heavily damaged by a fire, the cause of which could not be determined.  The Church retained a private expert who concluded that a halogen lamp that had been left on near combustible materials in the attic was the probable cause of the fire. 

The Church sued the three contractors alleging negligence in leaving the lamp on, leaving the lamp near combustible materials, and not checking to make sure the lamp had been turned off. The trial court granted K&K, the owner of the lamp, summary judgment on the basis that it did not owe any duty to the church to monitor the conduct of third parties, including other contractors, using its equipment.

This issue, among others, were appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  Relying on the fact that (1) K&K knew that others were using its lamp in the attic and (2) K&K did not go back up into the attic the rest of the week to make sure that the halogen lamp was turned off, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision.  The Court held that, while K&K did not have any obligation to supervise the conduct of other contractors, its duty of ordinary care is to make sure that its equipment causes no harm.  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by K&K's argument that it did not turn the lamp on and was thus under no duty to control the actions of another person to turn the lamp off, even though it had the practical ability to do so.

The full opinion of First United Methodist Church of Ozark v. Harness Roofing, et al., 2015 Ark. App. 611, is available here.