McEwen v. United States , 243 F. App'x 685 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    7-27-2007
    McEwen v. USA
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-2797
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "McEwen v. USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 689.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/689
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    _______________
    No: 06-2797
    _______________
    THERESA J. MCEWEN,
    Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN/JANE DOE, 1-10 (a name being
    fictitious representing one or more fictitious defendants);
    ABC CORPORATION, 1-10, (a name being fictitious representing
    one or more fictitious corporations); XYZ PARTNERSHIPS 1-10,
    (a name being fictitious representing one or more fictitious partnerships)
    _______________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. No. 03-cv-00167)
    District Judge: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
    _______________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    June 27, 2007
    Before: BARRY, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed: July 27, 2007)
    _______________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    _______________
    JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
    Theresa McEwen appeals from an order, issued by the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey, granting the government’s motion for summary judgment.
    She claims that there was yet in the case a genuine issue of material fact and that the
    granting of summary judgment was therefore reversible error. For the following reasons,
    we will affirm the District Court’s order.
    I.
    We present the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. McEwen, the party against
    whom the order was entered. Lindsey v. Caterpillar, Inc., 
    480 F.3d 202
    , 205 (3d Cir.
    2007). On February 1, 1997, Kenyon Building Maintenance (“Kenyon”) entered into a
    contract with the United States Department of the Army to provide custodial services at
    various locations at the Army’s base at Fort Dix, New Jersey, including the Child
    Development Center (“CDC”). McEwen began working for Kenyon on October 30,
    1997. She provided maintenance services at the CDC on a daily basis from 7:30 a.m. to
    4:00 p.m.
    Kenyon’s contract with the Army required Kenyon to “furnish all labor, materials,
    equipment, [...] and supervision to perform [its] custodial services ... .” Appendix
    (“Appx.”) at 56a. Those custodial services included maintaining the floors. The contract
    stated that Kenyon should “control the work situation to minimize safety hazards.” 
    Id.
     at
    110a. The contract further provided that Kenyon would “comply with all pertinent
    provisions of the Army’s Safety Regulations ... .” 
    Id.
     at 109a. One of the safety
    regulations governing the CDC required the cleaning service to be of “hospital grade
    1
    quality.” 
    Id.
     at 161a. Those same regulations stated that caregiving employees at the
    CDC were precluded from providing custodial services, “with the exception of wiping
    tables, sweeping floors etc., after program activities and meal service, to maintain
    functional orderliness and cleanliness.” 
    Id.
    On June 23, 1998, at approximately 7:52 a.m., McEwen claims that she slipped on
    a “moist” floor on her way to check supplies in the bathroom. 
    Id.
     at 171a. She alleges
    that the floors were moist because “[i]t had been raining for a couple of days.” 
    Id.
    Apparently, the CDC had a leaky roof and air conditioning problems that resulted in
    slippery conditions on the linoleum floors during humid weather. Judy Beard, the teacher
    in whose classroom McEwen was injured, testified that she kept a mop in her room to
    clean up spills and the condensation that would collect on the floors. She stated that she
    took care of the floors in the morning to “help[] [McEwen] out,” but that it was the
    cleaning staff’s responsibility to maintain the floors if they were damp and to keep the
    building “safe and clean for the children.” 
    Id.
     at 271a, 275a, 279a.
    The manager of the CDC, Darlene White, testified that the staff had mops they
    could use to remove the moisture, but that it “was also the day custodian’s task to [...] run
    a dry mop [...] over the floors as needed.” 
    Id.
     at 250a. Moreover, White specifically
    recalled McEwen mopping the condensation on the floor in the room in which she later
    fell. McEwen’s supervisor also indicated that McEwen’s job requirements included
    mopping the floors. In contrast, McEwen testified that she only mopped the kitchen
    floor, and the night crew mopped the rest of the floors. However, in that same deposition,
    2
    McEwen stated that it was her responsibility to mop up water that leaked from the roof, if
    she was notified of the problem.1
    McEwen filed an injury claim with the Department of the Army on March 24,
    2000, asserting she was owed $2 million for “severe trauma” caused by her slipping “on a
    wet floor caused by a leaking roof ... .” 
    Id.
     at 30a. On January 15, 2003, after her claim
    was denied, McEwen filed a civil action against the United States under the Federal Tort
    Claims Act (“FTCA”), 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1346
    , 2671-2680, alleging that the government was
    negligent in failing to keep the CDC in a safe condition. The District Court granted the
    government’s motion for summary judgment, holding that, because McEwen’s employer
    was an independent contractor and her injuries “were the result of a risk inherent in the
    contracted work,” the United States did not have a duty to protect her from the risk. 
    Id.
     at
    12a. In addition, the Court found that no employee of the United States sufficiently
    participated in, actively interfered with, or exercised control over the manner or method
    of the work being performed at the time of the injury.
    The District Court had jurisdiction over this case under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
     and
    1346(b)(1). This Court has jurisdiction over McEwen’s appeal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    II.
    1
    Specifically, McEwen was asked, “Now, regardless as to whether someone directed
    you to do so or not, was it your understanding that your job responsibilities included
    cleaning up water that came from the leaky roof?” McEwen responded, “If someone had
    told me that there was a ton of water, I would get a bucket and a mop ... .” Appx. at 173a.
    3
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that a District Court may grant
    summary judgment where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [...] the
    moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” F.R.C.P. 56(c). We apply the
    same test as the District Court, drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the
    non-moving party. Gans v. Mundy, 
    762 F.2d 338
    , 340 (3d Cir. 1985).
    McEwen is suing the government under the FTCA, which grants district courts
    exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the United States for personal injury
    “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government
    while acting within the scope of his office or employment ... .” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1346
    (b)(1).
    The FTCA only allows liability on the part of the government in cases where “the United
    States, if a private person, would be liable ... in accordance with the law of the place
    where the act or omission occurred.” 
    Id.
     As a result, we apply New Jersey law to
    McEwen’s claim.
    According to the laws of New Jersey, a landowner has a duty to provide a
    reasonably safe place for employees of an independent contractor to work. Izhaky v.
    Jamesway Corp., 
    478 A.2d 416
    , 417 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1984). However, that
    duty “‘does not entail the elimination of potential operational hazards which are obvious
    and visible to the invitee upon ordinary observation and which are part of or incidental to
    the very work the contractor was hired to perform.’” Rigatti v. Reddy, 
    723 A.2d 1283
    ,
    1286 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999) (quoting Sanna v. Nat’l Sponge Co., 
    506 A.2d 1258
    , 1262 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986)); see also Izhaky, 
    478 A.2d at 418
    .
    4
    Additionally, in determining whether the landowner was negligent, courts should examine
    “the degree to which the landowner participated in, actively interfered with, or exercised
    control over the manner and method of the work being performed at the time of the
    injury.” Sanna, 
    506 A.2d at
    1262 (citing Gibilterra v. Rosemawr Homes, Inc., 
    115 A.2d 553
    , 555 (N.J. 1955)).
    The record indicates that the slippery floor conditions that caused McEwen to fall
    were obvious, known hazards. In her opening brief, McEwen admitted that “[t]he floor in
    the classroom was infamous for its slippery condition when it was either raining outside
    or humid during the warm months of the year.” Appellant’s Opening Brief at 5. She
    testified at her deposition that it had been raining for a couple of days prior to her fall, and
    that moisture and humidity had been building up on the inside of the CDC from the rain.
    These facts demonstrate that McEwen was well aware of the slippery condition of the
    floors in the CDC.
    The record also shows that the slippery floor conditions were part of or incidental
    to the work McEwen was hired to perform. The contract between Kenyon and the
    Department of the Army stated that the custodial services Kenyon was to provide
    included maintaining the floors. The contract specified that Kenyon would “control the
    work situation to minimize safety hazards.” Appx. at 110a. It further provided that
    Kenyon would comply with all applicable Army Safety Regulations, one of which stated
    that the caliber of the cleaning service at the CDC would be of “hospital grade quality.”
    
    Id.
     at 109a, 161a. Although McEwen claims that she only mopped the kitchen floor
    5
    during the day, even she admitted that it was her responsibility to mop up water if she was
    notified of the problem.
    New Jersey law also requires courts to examine the participation, interference, and
    control of landowners to determine whether landowners should be “implicated in
    negligence.” Sanna, 
    506 A.2d at 1262
    . That is, landowners should be held liable when
    their participation, interference, or control creates a condition that causes an injury. See
    
    id. at 1262-63
     (holding that because there was a question of fact regarding whether the
    scaffolding the landowner provided to an independent contractor was negligently
    maintained, judgment of involuntary dismissal was inappropriate where that scaffolding
    collapsed causing injury to an employee of an independent contractor); Izhaky, 
    478 A.2d at 418-19
     (concluding that, where an employee of an electrical contractor sustained
    injuries from a live wire, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was appropriate because a
    jury reasonably could have found that the defendant’s preparatory carpentry work could
    have been the cause of the injury). McEwen argues the government participated in and
    interfered with her work because Beard routinely ran a drop mop over the condensation
    that would collect on the floors during the humid weather. However, Beard’s actions did
    not cause the injury McEwen sustained. The floor was slippery because of the rain, the
    leaky roof, and the faulty climate control system, conditions of which McEwen was
    aware.
    Alternatively, McEwen argues that routinely running a dry mop over the moist
    floors created a “shared duty” to keep the floor conditions safe. Appellant’s Opening
    6
    Brief at 23. Thus, according to McEwen, by failing to mop the condensation off the floor,
    Beard caused her injury. This argument also fails, as the record plainly shows that the
    duty to maintain the floor belonged to Kenyon and hence to McEwen herself. The
    contract between Kenyon and the Department of the Army makes that clear, and
    McEwen’s testimony indicates that she understood that her company had responsibility
    for maintaining the floor. The fact that a teacher at times mopped up condensation in her
    classroom did not strip that contractual duty from Kenyon or amend the contract to create
    a shared duty.
    In short, McEwen, as an employee of Kenyon, cannot hold the government
    responsible for her injury caused by slippery floor conditions that she was well aware of
    and that it was her responsibility to remedy. Accordingly, we will affirm the District
    Court’s grant of summary judgment against McEwen.
    7