George Cochran (“Cochran”) was an employee of James H. Anderson Company (“Anderson”), a construction contractor. Cochran was severely injured in an accident on a construction site where George Sollitt Construction Co. (“Sollitt”) was the general contractor. Anderson was one of Sollitt’s subcontractors. Cochran filed suit against Sollitt, claiming Sollitt was responsible for the negligence of Anderson, which failed to properly supervise Cochran’s work prior to his injury.
In determining whether Sollitt was liable for the negligence of its subcontractor, Anderson, the court analyzed Sollitt’s contractual obligations for the supervision and safety of the project under the “retained control” exception to the general rule that a party who contracts with an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s acts or omissions. Under the exception, a general contractor can be held liable for the independent contractor’s acts and omissions when the general contractor’s control over the work of the independent contractor is sufficiently extensive, that is, controlling the means and methods of the work, to create an agency relationship. In such situations, the general contractor is vicariously liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.
Alternatively, if the general contractor’s control over the work of the independent contractor only relates to the timing of when the work will be done or prohibiting the work from being done in a dangerous manner, the control is not sufficiently extensive to create vicarious liability. In such a situation, the general contractor will only be directly liable for failing to use reasonable care in applying its looser supervisory authority over the work of the independent contractor.
Sollitt’s contract with the owner of the project, Loyola Hospital, provided Sollitt “shall be solely responsible for and have control over the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures, and for coordinating all portions of the work under the contract, unless the contract documents give other specific instructions concerning these matters.” The contract also provided Sollitt “shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the performance of the contract. The contractor shall take reasonable precautions for the safety of, and shall provide reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury, or loss to employees on the work and other persons who may be affected thereby.”
In finding Sollitt was not vicariously liable for Anderson’s alleged negligence, the court ruled that Sollitt’s contractual obligation did not provide Sollitt with sufficient control over the work of Anderson so that an agency relationship was created because it only gave Sollitt the right to control the timing of the work and to forbid doing work in a dangerous manner. Thus, unless Sollitt breached its duty to use reasonable care in exercising its supervisory authority over Anderson, it would not be liable for Cochran’s injuries. The court proceeded to find that Sollitt did not breach such duty because there was no evidence that Sollitt knew or should have known about the dangerous condition created by Cochran’s employer, Anderson.
If you are a contractor and have a question about retained control liability, please telephone a member of the firm.