Steven Grady v. Jones Lang LaSalle Construction Company, Inc. & a.

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed summary judgment for Jones Lang LaSalle Construction Company and Liberty Mutual in a negligence action brought by an employee of a roofing subcontractor who was injured while using a propane torch. The court held that the general contractor did not owe the plaintiff a duty to provide training, equipment, or oversight, and that the premises owner did not owe vicarious liability under the circumstances because the plaintiff had received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer. The court also rejected arguments based on the general contract, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, the inherently dangerous activity doctrine, and Valenti v. NET Properties Management.

Holdings

1. Jones Lang, the general contractor, did not owe Grady a duty of care to provide training, equipment, or oversight because the subcontract placed responsibility for safety, equipment, and supervision on A&M, which employed and supervised Grady.
2. Butler does not impose upon a general contractor an additional duty to provide training, equipment, or oversight to employees of subcontractors.
3. Neither A&M nor Grady was an intended third-party beneficiary of the general contract, and the contract therefore did not impose a contractual duty on Jones Lang toward them.
4. Assuming without deciding that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A states New Hampshire law, it did not impose a duty on Jones Lang under the facts of this case.
5. The inherent-danger doctrine did not apply as a matter of law because Grady's injury resulted from his use of improper equipment and work methods, not from a danger inherent in roofing work itself.
6. A premises owner's vicarious liability under Valenti does not extend to a subcontractor's employee who received workers' compensation benefits from the subcontractor for an injury caused by the subcontractor's acts or omissions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the general contractor owed Grady a duty of care to provide training, equipment, and oversight for work performed by the subcontractor's employee.
2. Whether the general contractor assumed a duty of care to Grady through its general contract with the premises owner.
3. Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A imposed a duty on the general contractor under the circumstances.
4. Whether roofing work performed during a New Hampshire winter was an inherently dangerous activity imposing a duty on Liberty Mutual.
5. Whether Liberty Mutual was vicariously liable under Valenti v. NET Properties Management for the negligence of an independent contractor despite Grady's receipt of workers' compensation benefits.

Disposition

affirmed