Background
Justin Bock brought claims under Oregon’s Employer Liability Law against Vigor Works LLC and Vigor Industrial LLC, which were not his direct employers. Bock argued that Vigor could nevertheless be liable as an indirect employer because it had retained the right to control how Bock’s direct employer, Fire Systems West, performed the risk-producing work.
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for Vigor. It relied on provisions in Vigor’s purchase order requiring Fire Systems West to comply with Vigor’s safety and security guidelines and making its work subject to inspection, together with deposition testimony indicating that Fire Systems West would have followed certain directives from Vigor.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed Vigor’s petition for review as improvidently allowed. The court therefore did not decide whether the summary-judgment evidence was sufficient to establish that Vigor retained the right to control the risk-producing activity under the Employer Liability Law.
Justice DeHoog, joined by Justice Garrett, concurred. The concurrence emphasized that the dismissal should not be understood as endorsing the Court of Appeals’ application of the Employer Liability Law or the governing precedents. It explained that the record was open to multiple interpretations and that Bock’s theory of liability would be better evaluated on a more settled record.
Key Takeaways
- The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed review without resolving the merits of Vigor’s challenge.
- The Court of Appeals’ ruling that factual disputes precluded summary judgment remains undisturbed.
- The concurrence cautioned that the evidence identified by the Court of Appeals may not necessarily satisfy the standard for indirect-employer liability.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves unresolved how contractual safety requirements, inspection rights, and evidence that a contractor would follow directives bear on whether a nonemployer retained a legally sufficient right of control under Oregon’s Employer Liability Law.
Although the Court of Appeals’ ruling continues to govern this case, the Supreme Court’s dismissal does not signal approval of that court’s reasoning and provides no new precedential guidance on the merits.