## Facts

- Pamela J. Pratt worked for Cersosimo Lumber Company in Vermont as a manual materials handler, repeatedly lifting lumber from pallets to a conveyor belt.
- Pratt injured her back on November 5, 1986, alleging the harm resulted from cumulative strain from repetitive lifting.
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was Cersosimo’s workers’ compensation carrier and marketed an active loss-prevention program using safety consultants and loss prevention representatives (LPRs).
- Pratt alleged Liberty’s LPRs inspected Cersosimo’s facilities multiple times over five years and identified manual materials handling as a major injury source.
- Pratt claimed Liberty failed to recommend feasible safety measures (e.g., lift tables) that would have reduced the lifting hazard and prevented her injury.
- Because workers’ compensation law barred a tort suit against her employer, Pratt sued Liberty in negligence, alleging negligent performance of a voluntarily undertaken safety program.
- After Pratt’s case-in-chief, the district court granted Liberty’s Rule 50(a) motion for a directed verdict; after a prior remand to reconsider in light of intervening Vermont law, the court reinstated the directed verdict, prompting this appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that Liberty voluntarily undertook an active workplace safety role creating a duty of reasonable care to employees under Vermont law and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A.
2. Whether evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find causation, including that Liberty’s alleged failure to recommend corrective measures could have been a substantial factor in Pratt’s injury.
3. Whether granting a directed verdict for Liberty was improper when the record, viewed favorably to Pratt, supported competing inferences on duty and causation.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment directing a verdict for Liberty and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court misconstrued Vermont law governing voluntary undertakings and improperly removed duty and causation questions from the jury.
- The court concluded Pratt presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find Liberty undertook an active loss-prevention function at the workplace.
- The court further concluded a jury could reasonably infer causation from evidence that Liberty recognized the hazard, had the ability to recommend feasible measures, and allegedly failed to do so.

## Legal Principles

- Under the voluntary-undertaking doctrine (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A), one who undertakes to render safety-related services to another may be liable to third persons for negligent performance when the undertaking increases risk, assumes another’s duty, or the other relies on the undertaking.
- A workers’ compensation insurer is not categorically immune from negligence liability to employees when it goes beyond underwriting inspections and undertakes an active loss-prevention or safety function.
- In voluntary-undertaking cases, causation may be proved through reasonable inferences from the insurer’s identified knowledge of hazards and alleged omissions, and is commonly a jury question when the record supports competing inferences.
- A directed verdict under Rule 50(a) is improper if, viewing the evidence and permissible inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, a reasonable jury could find for that party on duty and causation.

## Conclusion

The court held that Pratt’s evidence could allow a jury to find that Liberty voluntarily undertook workplace safety services at Cersosimo, owed employees a duty of reasonable care in performing that undertaking, and that Liberty’s alleged failure to recommend feasible safety measures could have contributed to Pratt’s injury; therefore, the directed verdict was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.


Pratt v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1992)