Pennsylvania Court Reverses $2.5 Million Jury Verdict Against Utility For Painter’s Injuries From Fall

Last week, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a jury verdict against a utility of nearly $2.5 million for injuries a painting contractor’s employee sustained when he fell 40 feet while painting an electric transmission pole.  The painting contractor had provided the worker with a pole belt, a body harness, and two lanyards, but the worker was using only the pole belt and one lanyard at the time of the incident.  The jury had found for the worker and returned a verdict of $4,613,150, but determined that the utility was 51% at fault and that the worker was 49% at fault, thus the verdict was reduced accordingly.

The trial judge had found the quality of control the utility exercised over the painting contractor was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether that quantity of control was enough to make the utility liable.  The appellate court disagreed, concluding that the utility owed no duty to the worker because the worker failed to establish that the utility retained control over the manner, means, and methods of the details of the work of the worker’s employer, the painting contractor.  Even though the contract with the painting contractor provided for quality specifications for the painting of the transmission poles, the details of the worker’s fall had nothing to do with these quality specifications.  The court emphasized that the worker failed to show any contractual provisions that instructed the painting contractor’s workers how to climb the poles safely to complete the painting work.  The contract provided that the painting contractor was “responsible for all climbing assist and rigging equipment necessary to complete this painting contract in an efficient manner” and that the painting contractor “shall be responsible to provide all personal protective equipment for all contractor personnel.”  The appellate court explained that even though the utility retained a certain degree of control over safety issues on the site, Pennsylvania case law made clear that retention of safety issues such as supervising and enforcing safety requirements or even imposing certain safety requirements at a work site does not amount to control for purposes of imposing liability pursuant to the retained control exception to the general rule that an owner generally does not owe a duty the employees of an independent contractor.