Case: Stinnett v.

Buchele
598 s.w.2d 469

Parties: Appellant (Plaintiff) - Stinnett

Appellee (Defendant) - Buchele

Procedural History: Summary Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Facts: Plaintiff is farm employee who was injured when he fell off a barn he was
painting. He brought an action against the farm employer that asserted his
negligence in failing to comply with safety regulations that required a safety net
for work in elevated areas, and for failure to supply a safe place to work.

Issue: does the farm employer have a duty for due care?

Holding/Judgment: Summary judgment affirmed for plaintiff (employer)

Reasoning: The trial court granted summary judgment to the farm employer because
it determined that the safety regulations did not create an independent cause of
action against an employer and there was no evidence that the farm employer had
sufficient familiarity with the circumstances at the farm location that he had a
duty to the farm employee to discharge.

_________________________________________________________________________________
CLASS NOTES

Was the harm foreseeable?

Did the actor's conduct violate the reasonable standard of care?
How would you determine the reasonable standard of care?

Employer is a doctor. - not familiar with circumstances that the painter should
have been.
What is the doctor's duty? How should he behave in order to satisfy the duty of
due care?
○ He has to take reasonable care to provide safe working environment.
What did the doctor do that didn't show reasonable care?
○ Doctor should have provided him with safety harness/net.
On appeal, roofer arguing that based on facts, should have been decided
differently.

What does Appellate court say about doctor's reasonable care?

○ Doctor supplied all materials that roofer asked for. Why is it reasonable
for doctor not to provide the safety net?
§ Doctor has hired him, but knows nothing, and is not directly involved
in the actions.
§ Roofer had done jobs similar before, and should have known what to
require of the doctor
§ Doctor did not know roofer went that day to work
§ Doctor is reasonable to expect the roofer to know what to expect and
to have the equipment
§ Appropriate for doctor to rely on roofer to take precautions for his
own safety. It satisfies the standard of reasonable care. He would not have
reasonably seen danger.
§ Hypo: it would not be reasonable for an amateur to know what to
expect
§ Danger is obvious. Not hidden danger. On a roof, it is obvious you
may fall off. Hypo: if doctor knew something about roof to make it dangerous that
may come out differently.