Facts

At the time of the July 19, 2017 incident, plaintiff was working for a general contractor hired to build a home addition. Defendant was subcontracted solely to drill caissons which would serve as the foundation for the addition. Defendant subcontractor was not contracted to do any other work and was not otherwise on site. Defendant subcontractor completed its job and left the Worksite two days before plaintiff's incident. The incident occurred after plaintiff acted on direct instruction from his own supervisor. Plaintiff did not allege the incident occurred in the course of defendant actively and/or negligently performing its drilling work. Rather, plaintiff argued that since the subject caissons were created by defendant in the first place, it is liable for his injuries because defendant "should have retained control over safety conditions after drilling caissons," despite being contractually precluded from doing so, and despite defendant's absence from the Worksite. Defendant subcontractor had no initial or independent duty to cover and secure the caissons or otherwise ensure the general safety of a Worksite it did not own, operate, or control.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that since his injury was related to the sheer existence of the caisson, that alone is sufficient to find liability. Plaintiff further contended that defendant "should have retained control over safety conditions after drilling"

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended the incident was not related to any purported negligent act during the course and scope of its work. Defendant further contended there was no special relationship with plaintiff to create a duty. Defendant had no control over the general contractor or its directions towards its own employees, including plaintiff. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged incident did not involve defendant.

Specials in Evidence

Meds: in excess of $196,093 Loe: in excess of $135,150 Future Loe: in excess of $600,000 Future Meds: in excess of $200,000

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered injuries to his back, knee, hip, shoulder

Result

The court granted summary judgment on the grounds defendant did not owe plaintiff a legal duty and there was no proximate cause between defendant's actions and plaintiff's incident.