The Case of the Careless Contractor

During World War II, the U.S. Air Force built an emergency auxiliary air strip and three hangars in Sunflower, Kansas, their purpose being to provide alternative facilities in the event McConnell Air Force Base became the target of saboteurs or other unforeseen catastrophic events. Due to war-time demands for metal, the hangars were constructed almost entirely of wood.

After the war, the feds auctioned the strip and all three hangars to Great Plains Realty, based in Wichita. Great Plains let the runway go unmaintained and leased the hangars out to businesses looking for low cost warehousing in the Midwest.

A few years ago, there was a good deal of speculation that commercial aviation would abandon the hub paradigm and develop a structure much more conducive to point-to-point air travel using smaller (and, it was theorized, in the future, personal) aircraft. In other words, a great deal more similar to bus and train travel – a station in most every town.

The speculation generated renewed interest from the aviation industry in the airfield in Sunflower. Three months ago, Great Plains leased Hangar One to Shocker Aviation for substantially higher rental payments than it was able to charge previous tenants for warehousing space. Great Plains made plans to restore the airstrip to usable condition, improve it and maintain it. They also decided to make a number of improvements to the three hangars in anticipation of leasing or selling them at significant profit due to the uptick in interest by the aviation industry.

One of the improvements to be completed was strengthening the ceiling support structures, including the replacement of old, rusting nuts and bolts in the rafters with new ones made of stronger alloys than were available in the 1940’s. Under the terms of their leases, Great Plains’ tenants were required to allow Great Plans and its agents to enter the leased premises for maintenance and making improvements.

The general contractor whose bid was accepted for the hangar improvements was Ichabod Construction, an outfit based in Topeka. When it came time for the rafter repairs, Ichabod ran into a problem . The nuts were rusted fast to the bolts which needed to be removed and replaced. They proved to be impossible to loosen with conventional methods and tools. Ichabod workers decided to utilize an acetylene cutting torch to cut the bolt heads off. They would then hammer the old bolt out, and slide in a new bolt, made of the modern alloy and tighten a new nut made of the same material.

At 3 a.m. the night after the first day of bolt cutting using the torches, Hangar One caught fire. The old, dry wood burned rapidly, and the hangar was fully involved by the time any firefighting equipment or personnel reached the airstrip. Hangar One burned to the ground, and most of the equipment inside, owned by tenant Shocker Aviation, was also destroyed.

Investigation brought to light the following additional information:   Tiny bits of molten metal, called slag, can fly off a metal bolt being cut by an acetylene torch and smolder for hours thereafter. Although a tool called a pneumatic wrench might have been able to loosen the nuts from the bolts, Ichabod didn't have one, and made no effort to find one. The burn pattern of the fire clearly indicated that the point of origin was in the roof. Ichabod Construction took no precautions in using the torches, except those for the safety of its own workers.

Great Plains Realty, the owner of Hangar One, comes to your law office in Sunflower and asks you to file a negligence suit against Ichabod Construction for destruction of the hangar.

a. State the elements of a cause of action for negligence.

b. Using the elements of negligence, analyze (by which I mean: Expressing yourself in complete thoughts, identify, for each and every element, facts from the story problem which demonstrate whether the plaintiff can prove that element and, therefore, give rise to your conclusion that the cause of action – in this case negligence – can or cannot be established) whether Great Plains has a cause of action for negligence against Ichabod Construction.