The Plaintiff’s Injuries

It is alleged that the plaintiff was working as a framer on a construction project when he fell from a scaffold, injuring his leg and foot. The plaintiff, who was employed by a subcontractor, brought negligence claims against the general contractor. The parties waived their right to a jury trial, and a bench trial was conducted. After the plaintiff presented his case, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b)(2). The trial judge granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Duties General Contractors Owe to Employees of Their Subcontractors

On appeal, the appellate court noted that the trial court granted the defendant’s motion on the grounds that it did not owe any duty to the plaintiff. In Massachusetts, four elements comprise negligence: a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of the duty, actual harm, and a connection between the harm suffered and the defendant’s breach.

The appellate court explained that in most instances, general contractors do not owe any duties to the employees of their subcontractors. Duties will be imposed if they retain control over the nature of the employee’s work, give them tools to complete the work, or directs how the work should be completed. In the subject case, the plaintiff did not argue that the retaining control exception applied, and there was no evidence in support of the imposition of a duty under that theory. Instead, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had a duty to comply with OSHA regulations, and the failure to do so constituted negligence. The court rejected this reasoning and affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with an Experienced Cape Cod Attorney

While in most negligence claims, the duty the defendant owes the plaintiff is to act with reasonable care, there may be other obligations imposed on a defendant depending on the facts of the case. If you were hurt because of someone else’s careless behavior, you might be able to recover damages, and you should meet with an attorney. The experienced personal injury lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can advise you of your rights and aid you in pursuing the best legal outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact us via our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

If you or someone in your family has been hurt at work, it is best to talk to a lawyer right away. A knowledgeable work injury attorney will talk to you about the details of your accident and advise you of the procedure for protecting your claim and your legal rights.

Waiting too long to take legal action can result in total forfeiture of an otherwise valid claim, so it important to understand the necessary steps in your particular case. It is important to note that, while there are general statutes of limitation for workers’ compensation cases, the circumstances of your particular case may alter that general timeline. This is especially true in cases involving product injury, injuries out of state, and accidents that were caused by the negligence of a governmental entity.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were the employer of a construction worker who was seriously injured on a construction site at a high school in Massachusetts and the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. The plaintiffs filed suit against the contractor, various subcontractors, the maker of a retractable lifeline that allegedly failed (thus causing the accident), and others, asserting various claims (including subrogation, negligence, breach of warranty, and breach of contract, among others). Notably, the construction worker, the contractor, and several of the subcontractors were residents of Connecticut; the manufacturer of the lifeline was a German company.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit on the grounds that it was time-barred by Connecticut’s two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

On appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiffs argued that the lower tribunal had erroneously applied Connecticut law to the case. In the plaintiff’s view, the trial court should have measured the limitations period according to the three-year statute of limitations codified at Massachusetts General Laws ch. 260, § 2A, rather than the shorter period allowed under Connecticut law. After weighing the respective arguments of the parties, the appellate court agreed with the plaintiffs and reversed the lower court’s order dismissing the suit on limitations grounds.

In so holding, the court found that an appropriate approach for determining which state’s law applied was to consider the statute of limitations that would have governed the suit had the construction worker himself filed the action. Given that the accident took place in Massachusetts, the construction worker’s right of action would have been in Massachusetts, and hence the three-year limitations period would have applied. The fact that the plaintiffs were “standing in the shoes” of the construction worker via a subrogation claim did not alter the result.

To Get Legal Advice About a Cape Cod Work Injury

Work-related injuries are common and can sometimes lead to lifelong physical and vocational disability. It is important to understand your legal rights as you go forward in the pursuit of fair compensation for an on-the-job accident or injury, as there are many nuances in this area of the law that can complicate what may initially seem like a straightforward case. If you have questions that you need answered by an experienced workers’ compensation attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. We handle a wide variety of construction accident and workers’ compensation cases throughout the Cape Cod area, including cases arising in or around Hyannis and Plymouth.

If you have been injured at work, you should understand both your legal rights and your own responsibilities, such as the giving of timely notice. Understanding what is required of both you and the entity for whom you were working at the time of the accident is important as you go about seeking the compensation to which you are entitled.

Please keep in mind that, even in the age of COVID-19, there are deadlines for filing claims. Failure to take timely legal action on a Cape Cod workers’ compensation injury case will likely mean that your right to pursue compensation will be deemed waived.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was carpenter who severed his thumb on a table saw (which he owned) while working on a home renovation project at the defendant homeowner’s house. The carpenter filed a negligence lawsuit against the homeowner, seeking to hold her liable for his injuries on the basis that the construction area in which he was working was unduly crowded. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that, as a matter of law, she was not legally responsible for the carpenter’s accident on her premises. In support of her motion, the homeowner pointed out that she had hired a general contractor to work on the project and that the general contractor had been the one who hired the contractor and had control over the project.

The trial court granted the homeowner’s motion, and the contractor appealed.

Decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court

The appellate court affirmed the lower tribunal’s ruling in favor of the homeowner. The court agreed that the record upon which the contractor relied in his opposition to the homeowner’s motion for summary judgment was insufficient to show that the homeowner had retained the type of control over the operative details and safety protocols of the project that would have been required in order for the homeowner to have been held liable for the contractor’s injuries. In so holding, the appellate tribunal relied in part upon the “general rule” that the employer of an independent contractor was not usually liable for physical harm caused to another by the contractor’s allegedly negligent actions.

In so holding, the court acknowledged that there were numerous exceptions to this general rule, perhaps to the point in which the rule was “general” only in the sense that it applied when there was no good reason for departing from it. Nevertheless, in the case at bar, the court agreed with the homeowner that, under the facts presented, she was not liable for the contractor’s injuries insomuch as the injury was caused by the carpenter’s misuse of his own saw and there was nothing in the record to connect any alleged property defect chargeable to the homeowner to the carpenter’s injury.

For a Free Case Review

Workers should not have to bear the burden of the staggering medical expenses and disability that can result from an on-the-job injury. However, each case must be evaluated on its own merits. It pays to have an aggressive legal advocate in your corner as you go through the process of seeking appropriate compensation for a work-related injury. At The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, we have helped many injured workers in the Cape Cod area, and we would be glad to take a look at your case and explain your legal rights going forward. For an appointment, call us at 888-262-6664; during the COVID-19 crisis, we are making adjustments to our usual business practices, including conducting client appointments by phone in some construction and worksite accident cases.

One reason for this is that those in the construction industry may be injured by someone other than his or her direct employer. A particular individual might also be working as an independent contractor. In such a situation, workers’ compensation may not be available, and the injured person’s only remedy may be to filed a negligence suit against the person or company who he or she believes caused the accident.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was construction worker who was severely injured when a porch roof where he was working collapsed and caused him to fall about 12 feet to the ground. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendants, a contractor on the construction project, a trustee (the property where the accident happened was apparently owned by a trust rather than by an individual or corporation), and the person responsible for the maintenance of the property, seeking payment for his medical expenses of approximately $1.3 million, along with other damages resulting from the fall.

The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict declaring that the plaintiff was 51% at fault in the accident and, thus, not entitled to any monetary compensation for his injuries under Massachusetts’ modified comparative fault rule. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Ruling

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the lower court had erred in 1) refusing to instruct the jury on a landowner’s duty to ensure that the premises were safe and contained no hidden defect and 2) instructing the jury as to the six-year statute of repose applicable to construction defect lawsuits. The appellate court disagreed with the plaintiff’s contentions and affirmed the lower court’s judgment upon the jury’s verdict.

As to the plaintiff’s request for a specific jury instruction regarding the landowner’s duty, the appellate court found that the trial court judge had adequately and accurately covered that subject even if the specific language requested by the plaintiff had not been used. Because the instruction, as given, was in accordance with existing case law, the higher court discerned no error. The instruction at issue contained language to the effect that a landowner has a duty to warn those on his or her property of hidden defects but is not required to issue a warning as to open and obvious dangers unless the landowner anticipates harm despite the obviousness of such conditions.

The court also ruled in favor of the defendants with regard to the statute of limitations instruction, noting that the porch had been installed no later than the late 1980s and, thus, any negligence claim stemming from the construction thereof was time-barred under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B.

Schedule a Free Consultation with a Cape Cod Attorney

Anyone can be injured on the job, but those in the construction industry are especially susceptible to work-related injuries due to the dangerous nature of their work. At the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, in Hyannis and Plymouth, our experienced Cape Cod injury attorneys represent those who have been hurt in falls from roofs on construction sites, as well as many other types of construction workplace accidents. For a free consultation, call us at 888-262-6664.

Related Blog Posts Federal District Court in Massachusetts Denies Summary Judgment to General Contractor Following Injury by Allegedly Defective Tool Construction Worker Falls 30 Feet From Scaffolding at a Country Club in Mashpee

One of these circumstances arises when a defective product was to blame for the worker’s injuries. Additionally, in some cases, the general contractor on a construction project may also be liable for the injuries of a subcontractor’s employee.

Of course, liability is never automatic, and these defendants – like most defendants who are facing the payout of a substantial verdict due to another person’s injuries – usually fight hard against a finding that they are legally responsible.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiff was an iron worker who was injured due to an allegedly malfunctioning powder-actuated tool made by one of the defendants (“the manufacturer”). At the time of his injury, the worker was employed by a subcontractor on a construction project at a state university. The worker, joined by his wife, filed suit against the manufacturer and the distributor of the allegedly defective product, along with the general contractor on the construction project.

With respect to the general contractor, the worker alleged that it was negligent in the management of the construction project, injury prevention protocols, training procedures, and furnishing of equipment and that this negligence proximately caused his injuries and his wife’s loss of consortium.

After the lawsuit was removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, the manufacturer and the general contractor filed cross-claims against each other. Thereafter, the general contractor filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims pending against it.

Decision of the Court

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the general contractor’s motion for summary judgment. The court first reiterated Massachusetts law with respect to a general contractor’s liability for injuries suffered by a subcontractor’s employee. If the general contractor retains the right to control the work (including safety measures), it must exercise that control with reasonable care, and it is liable for damages caused by its failure to do so. Generally, this is a fact-based inquiry that belongs to the jury unless the undisputed facts show that there was an absence of any meaningful control.

Since the court found that the undisputed facts in the current case did not demonstrate such an absence of control, the court determined that summary judgment for the general contractor was not appropriate. According to the court, “sufficient disputed facts” required that the jury try the issue of whether the general contractor retained control of the project, such that it owed a duty to the plaintiff. In so holding, the court rejected the general contractor’s argument that expert testimony was required to establish a causal link between its allegedly negligent supervision and the plaintiff’s injury from the supposedly faulty tool.

Speak with an Experienced Attorney About Your Legal Matter

If you have been hurt on the job due to a faulty piece of equipment or tool, you should talk to a lawyer about the possibility of filing a product liability lawsuit or another third-party action. The knowledgeable construction and worksite accident attorneys at the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can help. For a free consultation in our Hyannis or Plymouth offices, call us at (888) 262-6664. Since the statute of limitations and statute of repose limit the time for filing certain claims, please do not delay in seeking counsel, lest your claim be dismissed as untimely.

Related Blog Posts:

Workers’ Compensation Insurer Was Not Entitled to Subrogation of Pain and Suffering Award in Worker’s Claim Against Third-Party Tortfeasor Construction Worker Falls 30 Feet From Scaffolding at a Country Club in Mashpee

Of course, the burden is on the employee to show that he or she is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Recently, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals was called upon to determine whether an employee who had been receiving benefits due to a work injury was still disabled because of the accident that happened on the job or whether something else was to blame for his ongoing disability.

Facts of the Case

In the recent (unreported) case of Robert Amaral’s Case, the plaintiff was a man who worked with youths. He hurt his shoulder and back when he fell while trying to restrain two youths who were in a fight in 2009. After he had been receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a time, his employer filed a complaint with the Department of Industrial Accidents, asking that the employee’s benefits be discontinued. A hearing was held, and the administrative law judge ordered that the employee’s total incapacity benefits be discontinued but that his partial incapacity benefits be continued. Both the employer and the employee appealed.

After a de novo hearing, the administrative law judge decided to discontinue the employee’s weekly benefits on the basis that his continued disability was caused by obesity and a pre-existing condition rather than by the work injury in 2009. The reviewing board affirmed.

The Court of Appeals’ Decision

On further appeal by the employee, the court affirmed. Although the employee argued that the administrative law judge had erred in using a faulty analysis and had abused her discretion by adopting the opinion of a particular medical expert, the court found no such errors. In so holding, the court noted that an administrative law judge is free to accept or reject – in whole or in part – the opinion of a medical expert witness tendered by either of the parties. The court also noted that the expert whose testimony the plaintiff urged should be rejected was consistent with the findings and deposition of the impartial medical examiner.

For Advice About Your Work Injury Case

If you have been hurt on the job, you have a right to understand the benefits to which you may be entitled. To schedule an appointment with an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at 888-262-6664 and ask for a free consultation. We will gladly review your situation and advise you of your legal options. In most cases, an employee’s relief is limited to workers’ compensation benefits from his or her employer (or its insurer), but occasionally the facts of a particular case will give rise to potential tort liability against a third party. There are strict time limits for the filing of both workers’ compensation claims and personal injury lawsuits, so do not delay in contacting an attorney about your injury.

Related Blog Post Massachusetts Produce Company Was Immune from Negligence Suit by Temporary Worker Provided by Staffing Company – Molina v. State Garden, Inc. Massachusetts County Correction Officer’s Claim for Assault Pay Was Subject to Three-Year Statute of Limitations – Flaherty v. Sheriff of Suffolk County

In a recent case, the state’s highest court was faced with two cases in which trial judges had rendered very different decisions in cases involving basically the same issue. It was up to the high court to reconcile the lower courts’ decisions and provide guidance to those facing similar issues in the future.

Facts of the Cases

In the case of DiCarlo v. Suffolk Construction Co., the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was called upon to review two companion cases, one of which originally arose due to on-the-job injuries sustained by a man in 2004. He suffered a back injury while working as an electrician on a construction site. The workers’ compensation insurer for the man’s employer paid out medical expenses and lost wage benefits, totaling about $282,000. The man and his wife filed a tort action against the construction site owner and managing contractor, which in turn filed third-party complaints seeking indemnification from an apparent subcontractor. A tentative agreement was reached, but the trial judge refused to approve a settlement that would have allocated 35% of the settlement to the man’s pain and suffering and would have prevented the insurer’s lien from attaching to this part of the award. The court of appeals reversed.

In the companion case, a second man was injured in 2010, also while working at a construction site. The insurer paid out over $566,000 in workers’ compensation benefits on the second man’s behalf. As in the first case, the second man and his wife filed a tort case against the general contractor and subcontractor of the construction site where he was injured and reached a tentative settlement. A different superior court judge approved the settlement, which, as in the first case, allocated a percentage of the award toward pain and suffering over the insurer’s objection that this should be included in its lien. The court of appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Judicial Court’s Decision

The court reversed the trial court’s denial of settlement approval in the first man’s case and affirmed the trial court’s approval of the settlement in the second man’s case. The court acknowledged that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 15 generally provides that a workers’ compensation insurer may benefit from an employee’s recovery from a third-party tortfeasor, but it found that there was a dispute about the meaning of the phrase “gross sum received in payment for the injury” as applied to the cases at bar.

Since pain and suffering are not “injuries” for which workers’ compensation insurers must pay benefits to injured workers, recovery for them from a third-party tortfeasor does not require reimbursement to the insurer. In so holding, the court rejected the insurers’ arguments that injured workers would receive a double recovery, and it emphasized that its decision would not deprive an insurer of reimbursement in situations in which third-party settlement agreements inappropriately allocated the bulk of the damages to pain and suffering.

For Help with a Construction Accident Case

If you or a family member has been hurt in a construction accident and need to speak to an experienced Cape Cod work injury attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at (888) 262-6664 and ask for a free case evaluation. We have offices in both Hyannis and Plymouth, and we can serve clients anywhere in Massachusetts. Nos Falamos Portugues!

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts County Correction Officer’s Claim for Assault Pay Was Subject to Three-Year Statute of Limitations – Flaherty v. Sheriff of Suffolk County Construction Worker Falls 30 Feet From Scaffolding at a Country Club in Mashpee

For example, if a worker drives as part of his or her job and is injured in a car accident while in the course and scope of employment, the worker may be able to file a traditional personal injury lawsuit against the person who caused the wreck. (If the suit is successful, the employer may be entitled to an offset of any monies paid to the worker.)

In a recent case, an injured governmental employee sought benefits beyond that which were awarded by the Department. Unfortunately, he waited to late too file suit and lost part of the money to which he would have otherwise been entitled.

The Nature of the Plaintiff’s Injury

In the case of Flaherty v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, the plaintiff was a county correction officer who was injured due to prisoner violence in 2006. An administrative law judge found him to be partially disabled shortly after the accident. Accordingly, he was awarded workers’ compensation benefits until September 2010, which was the effective date that a lump sum settlement agreement ended his benefits. In November 2010, the officer filed suit in superior court, seeking assault pay pursuant to Mass. Gen. Law. ch. 126 § 18A.

What Happened in the Trial Court

The judge of the superior court found in favor of the officer, holding that the defendants were liable for assault pay. In so holding, the court rejected the defendants’ contentions that the officer’s entitlement to assault pay ended when he reached retirement age and/or that his lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendants appealed.

Proceedings in the Appellate Case

The appellate court vacated the trial court’s order and directed that a new judgment be entered to the effect that the officer was entitled to assault pay for the period beginning three years before he filed his complaint and ending when his workers’ compensation benefits terminated in September 2001. The court so held because it agreed with the trial court that the officer was entitled to assault pay as long as he was receiving workers’ compensation benefits but that the applicable statute of limitations (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 3A) precluded him from recovering payments that would have been due more than three years before the filing of his complaint.

Although the court agreed with the officer that his claim arose under an employment contract, the court rejected his argument that the governing statute of limitations was the six-year statute for contract disputes. Because the suit was, in essence, against the Commonwealth, the three-year statute of limitations that governs all claims against the Commonwealth applied to the officer’s case.

To Get Help with Your Worksite Injury Case

If you have been injured on the job and would like to speak to a knowledgeable Cap Code worksite injury lawyer, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III at (888) 262-6664 to schedule a free initial consultation. With offices in Hyannis and Plymouth, we offer legal services throughout the Cape Cod area. The consultation is free, and we accept most cases on a contingency fee basis so no legal fees are required upfront.

Related Blog Posts Proceeds of a Third Party Settlement Compensating a Massachusetts Employee for Pain and Suffering Were Not Subject to a Worker’s Compensation Lien – DiCarlo v. Suffock Construction Company Seaman with Aplastic Anemia Was Entitled to Maintenance and Cure, Contrary to Massachusetts District Court’s Decision: Ramirez v. Carolina Dream, Inc.

Due to the nature of the profession, construction industry safety is a big concern. In 2011, an estimated nine million workers in building, heavy, and special trades construction were at risk for fatal and nonfatal injuries. In fact, the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), reported that in 2011, there were 4,114 worker fatalities in private industry. Of that number, 721 deaths or 17.5% were in the construction field. This comprehensive report also states that the leading causes of worker fatalities on construction sites were falls, followed by electrocution, being struck by an object, and then “caught-in/between.”

These causes — known in the construction industry as the “Fatal Four” — were responsible for nearly three out of five, or 57%, of construction worker deaths that year. The percentage breakdown for each one is as follows: falls accounted for 251 total deaths or 35%; electrocutions – 67 deaths or 9%; struck by an object – 73 deaths or 10%; and caught-in/between – 19 deaths or 3%. OSHA indicates that if the construction industry could eliminate the fatal four, 410 workers’ lives would be saved in the United States every year. Further, OSHA lists the most frequently cited violations as involving items such as scaffolding, fall protection, hazard communication, respiratory protection, control of hazardous energy, electrical, wiring methods, components and equipment, powered industrial trucks, ladders, electrical systems design, and machine guarding.

For some good news on non-fatal injuries, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s annual survey of occupational injuries and illnesses, the incidence rate of injuries and illnesses in the construction private industry sector decreased from four cases per 100 full-time workers in 2010, to 3.9 cases per 100 full-time workers in 2011.

Overall these are troubling statistics. The Cape Cod man who was injured in the fall from scaffolding at the local country club may be able to receive compensation for medical bills and lost wages under workers’ compensation coverage. If his injuries were caused by defective equipment, subcontractor, general contractor or employer negligence, he may be entitled to file a claim against one or more of these third parties. In order to properly evaluate whether you have a viable negligence claim and for how much, it is necessary to contact a local injury attorney who is well versed in the laws and procedures concerning construction site accidents.

Local attorney, John C. Manoog III, has extensive experience handling worksite and construction accident cases for injured victims in Cape Cod. For a free initial consultation, call the office at 888-262-6664 or reach us by email. There is always someone available to talk to you about your case.

Related Blog Posts: Massachusetts Worker Suffers Devastating Fatal Workplace Injury Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation: PT Domestic Workers Next?