Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

In October 2021, while working on a roofing project at a resort in Hancock, the plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, fell from the roof and sustained severe injuries. The plaintiff’s employer, MBT Construction Corp., had been subcontracted by the defendant, a general contractor, to carry out the roof replacement. The subcontract did not specify which party was responsible for jobsite safety, provision of safety equipment, or worker training. On the day of the incident, the plaintiff detached his safety harness to move shingles and fell before reattaching to another safety line. MBT had previously received citations from OSHA for safety violations, but both MBT and the defendant had a longstanding business relationship.The plaintiff filed a negligence and negligent hiring suit against the defendant in the Superior Court, arguing that the defendant failed to supervise and enforce safety protocols and had hired MBT despite knowledge of its inadequate safety history. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and that state law did not recognize a negligent hiring claim in these circumstances. The Superior Court judge agreed, finding that the defendant lacked control over MBT’s work and that the plaintiff, as the subcontractor’s employee, could not bring a negligent hiring claim against the general contractor.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case upon transfer. It affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the general contractor did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because it did not retain or exercise control over the injury-producing safety measures. The Court also held that Massachusetts law does not recognize an independent negligent hiring duty owed by a general contractor to a subcontractor’s employee for injuries arising from the subcontractor’s work under these facts. The judgment for the defendant was affirmed. View "Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc." on Justia Law

A worker was injured at a Manhattan construction site owned by Mezuyon, LLC during an excavation project managed by Mayrich Construction Corp. The accident occurred when the worker, who was operating a drilling rig that malfunctioned, was struck by the rear of an excavator while attempting repairs with a mechanic. The worker alleged injuries from being knocked to the ground by the excavator.The injured worker brought suit against Mezuyon, LLC, claiming common-law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Initially, the Labor Law § 241(6) claim was based on sections 23-9.4(h)(4) and 23-9.5(c) of the Industrial Code. After Mezuyon moved for summary judgment, the worker cross-moved to add section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code as a further basis for the claim. The Supreme Court allowed the amendment but ultimately dismissed all claims except the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on section 23-4.2(k). Mezuyon then brought a third-party action against Mayrich. The Supreme Court later granted summary judgment to Mayrich and dismissed the remaining claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed that dismissal, and the worker was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals held that section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code is not sufficiently specific to serve as a predicate for vicarious liability under Labor Law § 241(6). The Court reasoned that the regulation does not mandate compliance with concrete specifications but instead states a broad, general prohibition. As such, it cannot give rise to a nondelegable duty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, with costs. View "Mann v Mezuyon, LLC" on Justia Law

A worker at the Cherry Point oil refinery in Washington was regularly exposed to asbestos-containing insulation during his employment, which began in 1971. The insulation at issue was chosen, supplied, and installed by a subcontractor as part of the refinery’s original construction in the early 1970s. Decades after his exposure, the worker developed mesothelioma and died from the disease. His estate brought claims against numerous defendants, including the subcontractor, based on alleged asbestos exposure at the refinery.The Whatcom County Superior Court first granted summary judgment for the subcontractor, relying on Maxwell v. Atlantic Richfield Co., which held that Washington’s six-year construction statute of repose barred such claims. However, the court reconsidered and denied summary judgment after the Washington Court of Appeals issued Welch v. Brand Insulations, Inc., which found there were factual questions about whether the subcontractor’s activities were covered by the statute of repose. Due to conflicting appellate decisions, the Supreme Court of Washington granted direct review.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that claims against the subcontractor arising from its construction activities—specifically, its installation of asbestos insulation as part of constructing an improvement on real property—are barred by the construction statute of repose. However, the court held that claims based on the subcontractor’s independent role as a product seller or supplier, separate from its construction activities, are not barred by the statute of repose. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine which claims, if any, survive under theories of product seller or supplier liability. The court declined to address the constitutionality of the statute of repose, as that issue was not timely raised. View "Polinder v. Aecom Energy & Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

Two business partners were traveling on Interstate 65 in Kentucky when their rental car hydroplaned during a heavy rainstorm, resulting in a crash that killed one partner and seriously injured the other. The decedent’s widow, on behalf of herself, her children, and her husband’s estate, along with the surviving partner, brought suit against the engineering firms responsible for the design of a highway-widening project completed years earlier. The plaintiffs alleged that the engineers negligently designed the widened highway, causing increased water pooling and a greater risk of hydroplaning in the area where the accident occurred.The Fayette Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the engineers, holding that they were immune from suit as contractors for a governmental entity and that the claims were preempted by federal law because the design complied with required state and federal standards. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that contractors do not automatically share the immunity of the state, that government approval of the design did not insulate the engineers from potential liability for negligent design, and that the state negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that private engineering firms hired by a state agency are not entitled to the Commonwealth’s sovereign or derivative immunity simply by virtue of their contract. The court also found that summary judgment was inappropriate on the ground of the engineers’ work being “mandated” by the government because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the design was required or whether the engineers exercised independent judgment. Finally, the court held that Kentucky’s negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law, as the state claims did not impose standards more stringent than those required by federal regulations. View "HMB PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, INC. V. IVES" on Justia Law

A fatal collision occurred when a Volkswagen Jetta, driven by Raul Lopez with Emilio Martinez-Arroyo as a passenger, rear-ended a utility trailer owned by Ron J. Peterson Construction, Inc. (RJP) on a Utah highway. The trailer, which was transporting construction equipment and did not have underride protection, was traveling significantly below the speed limit with its emergency flashers on. Both occupants of the Jetta died instantly after their car slid under the trailer. Yesneiri Maldonado-Velasquez, the decedent’s wife, sued RJP alleging negligence both in operating the vehicle and in using a trailer that lacked safety features that could have mitigated the injuries.In the Third District Court, Summit County, RJP moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to upgrade the trailer beyond federal safety standards and that the crash was solely caused by Lopez. The district court found a general statutory duty to operate safe equipment but determined that there was no specific duty to alter the trailer, based on federal preemption and application of factors from B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West. As a result, the court excluded much of the plaintiff's expert testimony on enhanced injury and trailer design, allowing only claims related to negligent operation. The jury ultimately found RJP not at fault.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that the district court erred by applying the Jeffs factors to narrow an already established broad statutory duty to operate safe vehicles. The Supreme Court clarified that federal regulations set a minimum standard, not a ceiling, and that state law may impose greater obligations unless direct conflict preemption applies. The court also held that the exclusion of expert testimony premised on the erroneous duty ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Maldonado-Velasquez v. Ron J Peterson Construction" on Justia Law

An employee of a plumbing subcontractor was injured when a trench collapsed at a residential construction site, resulting in serious physical and emotional harm. The employee had been directed by his supervisor to enter a trench that did not comply with OSHA safety regulations. The general contractor for the project was not present at the site and only learned of the accident months later, after an OSHA investigation. The subcontractor, not the general contractor, was responsible for the trenching work and the day-to-day safety of its employees.After receiving workers’ compensation and settling gross negligence claims against his co-employees, the injured worker proceeded to trial solely on a negligence claim against the general contractor. The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied the general contractor’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, allowing the case to go to a jury, which found the general contractor liable and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The court held that, as a general rule, a general contractor does not owe a duty of care to the employees of an independent contractor. The court found that neither the “retained control” nor “peculiar risk” exceptions to this rule applied. The general contractor did not retain operative control over the subcontractor’s work, either by contract or by conduct, and residential trenching work is not inherently or peculiarly dangerous as a matter of law under Iowa precedent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the general contractor was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reversed the lower court’s ruling. View "Kono v. D.R. Horton, Inc." on Justia Law

A carpenter employed by a subcontractor was injured after falling from a ladder owned by another subcontractor, DAL Electrical Corporation, while working on a renovation project at an office building. The injured worker was using his own employer’s equipment in the morning but, after lunch, returned to the worksite without his equipment and used an unattended DAL ladder, which was defective and marked with blue tape. He was injured when the ladder wobbled and he fell, impaling himself on a tool in his belt. The worker brought claims under New York Labor Law and for common-law negligence against the project’s general contractor, premises owner, and DAL, asserting the defective ladder caused his injuries. The general contractor and owner sought indemnification from DAL under their subcontract.The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the worker’s motion for partial summary judgment on one Labor Law claim and denied DAL’s motion to dismiss other claims and cross-claims by the general contractor and owner. The court also granted the general contractor and owner summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against DAL. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order by denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and granting summary judgment for DAL on all claims and cross-claims against it. The general contractor and owner appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that none of the indemnification provisions in the subcontract required DAL to indemnify the general contractor or owner for the worker’s injuries because the injuries did not arise from DAL’s performance of its contractually defined work. The Court also found that DAL did not owe a duty of care in tort to the injured worker, as the facts did not fit within any recognized exception to the general rule against extending contractual duties to non-contracting third parties. The certified question was answered in the affirmative. View "Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc." on Justia Law

Pedro Castaneda died in a traffic accident at an intersection on State Highway 249 that was under construction. At the time, the intersection’s traffic lights were installed but not yet operational, and there was a dispute about whether they were properly covered to indicate their status. Castaneda’s family sued the contractors involved in the project, SpawGlass Civil Construction, Inc. and Third Coast Services, LLC, alleging that negligence in the construction and installation of the traffic signals contributed to the fatal accident. The construction project was governed by an agreement between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Montgomery County, with the County responsible for the project’s design and construction, but with TxDOT retaining authority over the adjacent frontage roads and final approval of plans.The trial court denied the contractors’ motions for summary judgment that sought dismissal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 97.002, which grants immunity to contractors under certain conditions. The contractors appealed. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Section 97.002 applies only to contractors who are in direct contractual privity with TxDOT, and since neither contractor had a direct contract with TxDOT, they could not invoke the statute’s protection.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals. It held that Section 97.002 does not require direct contractual privity with TxDOT for a contractor to qualify for statutory immunity. The court determined that, based on the summary judgment record, SpawGlass and Third Coast performed work "for" TxDOT within the meaning of the statute, as their activities directly related to frontage roads that TxDOT would own and maintain. The court remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the contractors met the remaining requirements of Section 97.002. View "THIRD COAST SERVICES, LLC v. CASTANEDA" on Justia Law

Two young children, ages four and two, were severely injured after falling from a second-floor bedroom window in an apartment building in Lodi, California, where they lived with their mother. The accident occurred shortly after the property owner replaced the apartment’s windows during a renovation that did not include installing fall prevention devices on the upper-floor windows. The children’s guardian ad litem sued the property owner and its manager, alleging negligence based on both general negligence and negligence per se, claiming that the absence of fall prevention devices violated the California Building Standards Code and proximately caused the injuries.The case was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Prior to trial, the defendants sought to defeat the negligence per se claim, arguing the building was exempt from current code requirements because it complied with the code at the time of its original construction in 1980. The trial court denied their motion, allowing both negligence theories to proceed to trial. After plaintiffs presented their case, the court granted a nonsuit for the entire complaint, ruling there was no duty owed under general negligence given lack of foreseeability, and that the window replacement qualified for a code exemption, negating negligence per se.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the matter de novo. The appellate court affirmed the nonsuit on the general negligence claim, finding the harm was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty. However, it reversed the nonsuit as to negligence per se, holding that replacing the window did not qualify for the “original materials” exemption in the Building Code, and thus the defendants were required to comply with current safety standards. The case was remanded for retrial on the negligence per se claim. View "Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes" on Justia Law

An employee of a roofing subcontractor was severely injured after falling through an uncovered hole while working on a library roof replacement project. The general contractor had contracted with the property owner to perform the roof work and then subcontracted the roofing portion to the injured worker’s employer. The injured worker received workers’ compensation benefits from his direct employer and subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against the general contractor, seeking damages for his injuries.In the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, the general contractor asserted statutory employer immunity under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing it was immune from tort liability as a statutory employer. The trial court struck the general contractor’s answer and new matter as untimely and granted the injured worker’s motion to preclude the statutory employer defense at trial. The case proceeded to a jury, which found the general contractor negligent and awarded $5 million to the plaintiff. The trial court denied the general contractor’s post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the general contractor. The Superior Court held that the general contractor was the injured worker’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability, finding all elements of the statutory employer test satisfied and that the defense was not waivable.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether to overrule prior precedent (Fonner and LeFlar) regarding statutory employer immunity and waiver, and whether the Superior Court properly applied the statutory employer test. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior holdings that a general contractor’s statutory employer immunity does not depend on actual payment of workers’ compensation benefits and that the defense is jurisdictional and not waivable. However, it found the Superior Court erred by exceeding its scope of review and remanded the case to the trial court to determine, after appropriate proceedings, whether the general contractor satisfied the disputed elements of the statutory employer test. View "Yoder v. McCarthy Const." on Justia Law