Court Rules GC Liable for Subcontractor Jobsite Injuries

Originally published by: RemodelingFebruary 9, 2015

The following article was produced and published by the source linked to above, who is solely responsible for its content. SBC Magazine is publishing this story to raise awareness of information publicly available online and does not verify the accuracy of the author’s claims. As a consequence, SBC cannot vouch for the validity of any facts, claims or opinions made in the article.

Editor's Note: This article is included due to it's potential impact on component manufacturers when their employees are on a construction jobsite.

According to a recent ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court, general contractors that exercise control over the worksite can be sued by a subcontractor’s injured employee.

In the case of Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, a roofing subcontractor’s employee died after falling through the roof of a under-construction Wal-Mart. The deceased employee’s estate sued Wal-Mart and Gram Construction, the general contractor, alleging that they were negligent in maintaining a safe worksite.

The court initially acknowledged that an owner does not typically owe a subcontractor’s employee a duty because the owner usually has no control over the manner in which the work done by the contractor. This general rule, however, has exceptions, such as where the owner retains control over the contractor’s work. But, for the exception to apply, the owner must have supervised the work that caused the injury, have knowledge of the danger that caused the injury, and have had the opportunity to prevent the injury.

Here, the deceased employee’s estate argued that Wal-Mart controlled the general contractor’s work. The court found otherwise, relying on the contract which stated that Wal-Mart had no right to exercise control over the general contractor, its employee, or its agents, and the lack of evidence that Wal-Mart actually exercised any control over the construction site.

Additionally, the court found it significant that OSHA had penalized the general contractor, noting that even though the general contractor’s employees were not exposed to the roofing hazard, the general contractor had explicit control for the overall safety and health of the worksite. 

The court found that the general contractor had a duty to monitor and control the safety of the worksite and had actually done so, even though its employees did not access the roof. Thus, the general contractor could be found liable for the injuries suffered by the roofing subcontractor’s employee. 

Check out this extra section in each digital issue of SBC Magazine for additional news, perspective, and advertiser content. Learn more and access 2016-2017 archives here.