Allegations of negligence in a worker’s injury at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort were central to a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision. iStock photo
The workers’ compensation insurance system, which is fundamental to risk allocation for employers in the modern era, assures that injured workers receive benefits, without requiring proof that their employers were at fault.
However, the benefits come with a tradeoff. Injured workers covered by workers’ compensation insurance must relinquish their common law rights to sue their employers for their injuries. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court revisited this policy last month in Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc. where a subcontractor’s employee unsuccessfully sued a general contractor for his job-related injuries.
Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock engaged Skyway Roofing, Inc. to replace roofing at its property. Skyway obtained a building permit, and entered into a subcontract with MBT Construction Corp., where Skyway delegated the roofing project to MBT. The subcontract required MBT to indemnify Skyway for losses arising from MBT’s work. Skyway had subcontracted work to MBT for other jobs under a similar arrangement.
Roofer Suffered Catastrophic Injuries
Luis Contento Suquilanda was an employee of MBT. In October 2021, Contento disconnected his harness from a safety line while moving a stack of shingles. He missed reconnecting his harness to a different safety line, fell from the roof and suffered catastrophic injuries.
Contento was treated for his injuries in New York, and received workers’ compensation benefits under New York law. By accepting those benefits, he waived his claims against his employer MBT. But that waiver did not prevent him from filing suit against Skyway in Berkshire County Superior Court.
Contento claimed that Skyway was negligent because it retained control over the job and did not provide adequate fall protection equipment for MBT’s workers. He cited Skyway’s building permit application, its contract with Jiminy Peak and its subcontract with MBT, to support his claim that Skyway had a legal duty to protect Contento from an unsafe workplace.
He also sued Skyway for negligently hiring MBT, which had been cited for fall protection violations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on other jobs.
Skyway moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not retain sufficient control over MBT’s work to owe a duty of care to Contento. It also argued that Massachusetts law does not recognize a right of subcontractors’ employees to sue general contractors for negligent hiring in cases where subcontractors are negligent. The Superior Court judge accepted Skyway’s arguments and dismissed Contento’s claims.
GC Sued over ‘Duty of Care’
Contento appealed this dismissal, and the Supreme Judicial Court took up the case. The SJC noted that for the negligence claim to prevail, Contento had to prove that Skyway owed him a “duty of reasonable care,” that Skyway breached that duty, and that Contento’s injuries resulted from the breach of duty.
The SJC disagreed with Contento’s assertion that Skyway retained control of the roofing project. Language in Skyway’s building permit application and its contract with Jiminy Peak, although creating legal and contractual responsibilities regarding the work, did not impose a duty of care on Skyway for Contento’s benefit.
The SJC also found that MBT chose the means and methods of the work, and that Skyway was not involved with the placement or adequacy of safety lines or training MBT’s employees.
According to the SJC, Contento lacked support for his claim that Skyway owed him a duty of care.
Christopher R. Vaccaro
SJC Unimpressed by Negligent Hiring Claim
The SJC next considered Contento’s negligent hiring claim against Skyway. It observed that negligent hiring cases usually involve injuries sustained by patients, customers and others exposed to losses because of a defendant’s hiring or retention decisions.
The SJC declined to allow Contento to maintain his negligent hiring claim, because Contento was an employee of a subcontractor, Skyway did not retain control of the workplace, and Contento’s injury was caused by MBT’s activities.
As additional support for its decision, the SJC noted that Contento had recourse to workers’ compensation benefits through MBT’s insurer, and that MBT’s subcontract required it to indemnify Skyway from claims arising from MBT’s work.
As a result, allowing Contento to maintain his suit against Skyway would expose MBT to liability under the indemnity clause in its subcontract with Skyway. Saddling MBT with that liability would be inconsistent with the risk management and allocation policies of workers’ compensation insurance.
The irony of this case is that when Skyway ceded control of the project to MBT, it effectively reduced its exposure to liability for workplace injuries. Skyway relied on MBT to handle safety measures for workers engaged in this dangerous roofing job. Had Skyway been more hands-on regarding the project, the SJC might have ruled differently.
Christopher R. Vaccaro Esq. is a partner at Dalton & Finegold LLP in Andover. His email address is cvaccaro@dfllp.com.
