When an injury or death occurs at a construction work site, no party is immune from legal exposure—regardless of how removed—in determining responsibility for site safety. Indeed, an increasing number of design professionals and construction managers are being held responsible for injuries related to construction. Most personal injury actions against construction managers (CMS) involve claims of negligence in which courts will focus on the traditional analysis of whether a duty of care was owed to the injured worker, whether the duty was breached, and whether the injury was "proximately caused" by that breach. In resolving these questions, courts will primarily look for guidance in the CM agreement; the CMS actions or omissions; and any obligations imposed by statute. Another way of imposing liability upon a CM is by holding that party "vicariously liable" as an agent of the property owner for personal injuries suffered by workers at the jobsite. In Walls v. Turner Construction Company, New York's highest state court broadly interpreted its scaffolding statute as imposing a duty on the construction manager to a trade contractor's employee.The court's decision holding the CM vicariously liable for injuries suffered at the project site was hotly disputed by dissenting opinions filed on both appeals. The Massapequa Union Free School District (the owner) retained Turner Construction Company as its CM for several school improvement projects. On one of those projects, the owner contracted directly with a trade contractor, Jordan Construction, to install new windows at the McKenna Elementary School. During the window replacement work one of Jordan's employees, Timothy Walls, fell two stories while trying to construct scaffolding. Walls had not been provided any safety equipment by either Jordan or Turner. Walls sued both under section 240 of New York's labor law, which requires "contractors, owners and their agents" to provide workers with proper safety protection against elevation-related risks.
展开▼
机译：当建筑工地发生人员伤亡事故时，任何一方都无法免除法律风险（无论如何移除）以确定现场安全责任。确实，越来越多的设计专业人员和施工经理对与施工有关的伤害负责。大多数针对建筑经理的人身伤害诉讼都涉及过失主张，法院将重点关注传统分析，即是否对受伤的工人负有护理义务，是否违反了义务以及是否“直接造成了伤害”。 ”的违反。在解决这些问题时，法院将主要在CM协议中寻求指导； CMS的作为或不作为；以及法规规定的任何义务。向CM承担责任的另一种方法是，让该方作为财产所有人的代理人“对工厂现场工人遭受的人身伤害负有责任”。在Walls v.Turner Construction Company一案中，纽约最高州法院将其脚手架法大致上解释为将建筑经理对贸易承包商的雇员负有责任。法院裁定CM对项目现场遭受的伤害负有赔偿责任。通过对两个上诉提出异议。 Massapequa Union Free学区（所有者）保留了Turner Construction Company作为其CM的几个学校改善项目。在其中一个项目中，所有者直接与贸易承包商约旦建筑公司（Jordan Construction）签约，在麦肯纳小学安装新窗户。在更换窗户期间，约旦的一名雇员蒂莫西·沃尔斯（Timothy Walls）在试图搭建脚手架时跌倒了两个故事。乔丹或特纳没有为墙壁提供任何安全设备。根据纽约州劳动法第240条，华尔街起诉了这两家公司，该法要求“承包商，业主及其代理人”为工人提供适当的安全保护，以防止与海拔相关的风险。
展开▼
