Supremes reverse directed verdict against Conagra Monfort plant employee's third party suit against Qwest Communications. "Accepted work doctrine" did not apply where phone company maintained control over strip of ground where cable lay.Washington v. Qwest Communications Corp., 270 Neb. 520 October 14, 2005. No. S-04-677. ConAgra employee Washington was injured when he tripped over a wire lying on the ground between a telephone terminal box and a utility pole located on a utility easement. Qwest Communications Corporation (Qwest) had installed the wire several days earlier in order to provide telephone service to a construction trailer owned by Addison Construction Co. (Addison). The district court granted Addison's motion for directed verdict, and a jury entered a verdict in favor of Qwest. Washington appeals. (ConAgra was joined as a party for the purpose of workers' compensation subrogation. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-118 (Reissue 2004).) Parker v. Lancaster County School District, 254 Neb. 754, 757, 579 N.W.2d 526, 528 (1998), states the "accepted work doctrine" as "generally a construction contractor is not liable for injuries or damage to a third person with whom he is not in contractual relation resulting from the negligent performance of his duty under his contract with the contractee where the injury or damage is sustained after the work is completed and accepted by the owner." See also Moglia v. McNeil, 270 Neb. 241 (2005) Supreme Court holding"We conclude that the accepted work doctrine did not apply because Qwest was still in control of the premises where the work was performed and the injury had occurred. In this case, the evidence showed that Qwest maintained control of the premises at all times because of the utility easement and that Qwest had control of the placement of the wire...Qwest maintained control over the site of Washington's accident, which occurred on a utility easement. Therefore, the accepted work doctrine was not applicable to the facts of this case. It was error for the trial court to instruct the jury that the accepted work doctrine could be relied upon as a defense in this case." Defendant entitled to new trial because he presented evidence to establish at least Qwest's legal duty of care: Washington adduced evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, would establish that Qwest had a duty to protect him from injury, that it did not discharge that duty, and that he was injured as a result. Therefore, Washington is entitled to a new trial as to Qwest's liability.