A general contractor cannot be held liable for an injury of an employee of a subcontractor where the general contractor had little or no control over the subcontractor’s work or job environment.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court this week upheld a summary judgment in favor of New York general contractor Skyway Roofing against claims of negligence and negligent hiring brought by an injured roofer who worked for one of its subcontractors.
The case turned on the subcontract, which was silent about safety and did not specify who was responsible for providing safety equipment, oversight, or training for the job replacing shingles on a building at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock, Mass.
Skyway obtained a building permit from the town. The permit application listed Skyway as the “general contractor” for the project. Skyway then subcontrac
ted the work to MBT Construction Corp., a New York firm it had worked with on numerous occasions. The subcontract required MBT to perform all work for the Jiminy Peak project under Skyway’s general direction but left to MBT the means and methods of doing so.
An MBT employee fell while replacing shingles and suffered life-threatening injuries. He brought a workers’ compensation claim against MBT through its New York insurer. He then sued Skyway for negligence.
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
The plaintiff also brought a claim under New York labor law but the judge concluded that Massachusetts law governed and granted summary judgment for the defendant on that count. The injured employee did not challenge that ruling on appeal.
The general contractor Skyway moved for summary judgment under Massachusetts law of the negligence and negligent hiring claims filed against it. The general contractor argued it had not retained sufficient control over MBT’s work to be liable, and that Massachusetts law does not recognize a negligent hiring claim brought by a subcontractor’s employee against a general contractor.
The trial judge agreed and concluded that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because it did not “retain the rights to control any aspect of MBT’s work.”
The trial judge further concluded that, as the employee of the allegedly negligent subcontractor, the plaintiff could not maintain a negligent hiring claim.
The MBT worker appealed and the Supreme Court elevated the case from the appeals court.
The Supreme Court noted that whether Skyway owed the worker a duty of care is a question of law, and was thus an appropriate subject of summary judgment.