Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed a judgment imposing negligence and gross-negligence liability on a general contractor after a subcontractor's employee died in a fall from a construction site. The court held that the contractor retained sufficient control over fall-protection systems to owe the employee a duty of care, and that legally sufficient evidence supported causation and gross negligence. The court also held that any error in the jury charge was harmless.

Holdings

1. A general contractor owes a duty of reasonable care to a subcontractor's employee when it retains the right to control an aspect of the subcontractor's work, including fall-protection systems. Lee Lewis retained sufficient control over the fall-protection measures at the jobsite and therefore owed Harrison a duty of care commensurate with that retained control.
2. Legally sufficient evidence supported the finding that Lee Lewis's failure to require KK Glass employees to use independent lifelines was a proximate cause of Harrison's death.
3. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that Lee Lewis was grossly negligent.
4. Any error in submitting the first jury question concerning Lee Lewis's retained right to control safety was harmless because the unobjected-to second question resubmitted the duty issue and the jury's affirmative answer to that question independently supported liability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the finding that Lee Lewis retained the right to control the subcontractor's fall-protection measures and therefore owed Harrison a duty of care.
2. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the finding that Lee Lewis's failure to require adequate fall-protection measures was a proximate cause of Harrison's death.
3. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's gross-negligence finding.
4. Whether the jury question asking whether Lee Lewis retained the right to control safety on the construction project was legally erroneous and required a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed