Post on 08-Aug-2020
Canterbury,Stuber,Elder,GoochSurratt
A Professional Corporation Email: cseg@canterburylaw.com
Attorneys at Law website:www.canterburylaw.com
Occidental Tower5005 LBJ Freeway. Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75244
Telephone: (972) 239-7493
Facsimile: (972) 490-7739
Paul LagerstedtNational Sales ManagerSuper Anchor Safety8522-216th Street SEWoodinville, WA 98072-8009
Re: Super Anchor Safety User Liability Questions
Dear Paul:
American Roof, Inc. DBA Super Anchor SafetyTM
has requested our opinion on
various liability questions related to the use of Super Anchor Safety'sTM
("Company's")
temporary and permanent fall protection anchors. This letter constitutes our opinion. It is
based on our legal research and study of the Company's products, including a visit to the
Company's offices, manufacturing, and assembling facilities in Woodinville,
Washington.
THEPRODUCTS
The Company's products include permanent and temporary fall protection
anchorage, the great majority of which are installed on the top chords of trusses, rafters, i-
joists, and beams as temporary protection for workers during construction or are flashed
into the roofing and left in place as permanent anchors for the protection of future
workers performing inspection, maintenance, repair, etc. following completion of
construction. The basic anchor is a patented device (U.S. Patent No. 5,370,202),
manufactured of 304 stainless steel. The anchors are tested by the Company using its own
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 I 42\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 1
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
testing facilities and outside testing firms. The basic anchor has tested in excess of 7,000
pounds, but the Company represents the anchors as structurally tested to only withstand
an average force of 5,000 pounds as required by OSHA standard 1926:502. The
Company maintains a vigorous quality control and testing policy, and issues installation
instruction manuals with each order. Separate models are made for tile roofs. Custom
sized anchors and anchors for structural steel are made and sold only on a specially
manufactured basis for specific projects. Also, the Company's standard products include
vertical wall anchors installed on the top plate, secured with bolts through a rafter. '
Although used on some commercial projects, the majority of the Company's sales are for
use in home and multi-family projects in connection with wood framing.
Since 1994 the Company has sold approximately 600,000 Super Anchors TM
without a single reported incident of one of its anchors failing to hold a falling or slipping
worker, or otherwise failing to serve its intended purpose of protecting roofers (and other
construction trades) or Owners and their employees using the products following
construction, including home owners.
The Company's permanent and temporary anchors comply with OSHA standards
(29 C.F.R. 1926.502(d)(15)) as well as the regulations of various state OSHA statutes.
ISSUESAND SCOPE OF OPINION
Although the Company's anchors have been tested and proven on construction
sites and finished buildings to prevent falls, some Owners, Contractors, and even
Subcontractors have expressed concerns to you of potential liability if a worker ever did
' The Company also makes and sells various fall arrestor safety lines, harnesses, etc. These products havenot been the subject of customers' liability questions; therefore, they are not discussed in this opinion letter.(Descriptions of these products are found on the Company's website, www.superanchor.com, where theCompany's installation guidelines may be found in English and Spanish.)
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 2
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
fall while tied off to one of the Company's anchors. Although the Company anchors are
designed to last for the life of the roofing system, it does not guarantee the structure
(normally wood trusses) to which an anchor is attached or that it is attached in
accordance with the Company's instructions. The question you have been asked is, "If
someone ever fell while tied off to a Super Anchor TM , would I be liable?" This question,
and other various "what if' scenarios, has caused some Owners, developers, design
professionals, and General Contractors to have legal concerns over using the Company's
anchors. In some cases safety directors for potential users have advised you that their
legal or risk advisors have counseled against installing safety anchors for fear of legal
exposure, although they realize the benefits of providing roof anchors to protect workers
who must get on roofs. Other customers have advised you that they install Super Anchors
TM temporarily for construction, but cut them off to prevent future use following
construction.
Although the Company has no problem in guaranteeing its products and certifying
their structural integrity, based on its ongoing testing and quality control programs, it
does not guarantee or warrant the structure to which the products are attached or that they
have been installed properly because it does not perform or inspect the installation of its
safety anchors. 2
This opinion will address legal exposure for various parties to construction
projects. Some Owners have required anchors as fulfillment of a moral duty to protect
workers from death or serious harm. Although I agree with that premise, this opinion
will not cover moral duties - only legal ones and potential legal risks of Owners, design
2The Company is currently developing plans for providing certified installers and inspections for an
additional fee, but that plan is not currently in place.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 3
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
professionals, Contractors, and Subcontractors 3 . This opinion letter does not purport to
cover applicable law of all states, and there are variations; however, the legal principles
discussed are generally applicable in all states, particularly those adopting the
Restatement of Torts. 4 Particular emphasis is placed on Texas and Washington, where the
Company has a large sales volume of its product. Important decisions of California and
some other states where the Company has substantial sales are also included. The
opinions of this document on liability questions are based on current law, without
discussion of the historical development of Tort law as applied to potential construction
site accidents. 5 The opinions of this letter are for your use in discussing liability
questions. This opinion letter is not intended as a substitute for legal advice on specific
situations and does not substitute legal advice to your customers on specific situations.
OWNERS
An Owner may require permanent safety anchors on any project as part of basic
design with minimal legal risk. Owners may want permanent anchors for the safety and
convenience of their own employees or employees of service firms or Contractors who
may have future need to be on roofs for inspection, repair, maintenance, and warranty
work. Housing developers may want permanent anchors as a benefit to purchasers.
To help identify and distinguish application of legal principles we capitalize the terms "Owner","Contractor", or "General Contractor" and "Subcontractor" throughout this opinion letter. We alsocapitalize the term "Architect".
The Restatement of the Law is a compilation of common law legal principles derived from cases of manystates. The Restatement of TORTS was first published in 1934 and a second edition was published in 1965.This edition, Restatement (Second) of TORTS has been approved by many courts as controlling legalauthority on many of the issues and questions concerning construction site accidents. It will be referred toas "Restatement 2 "d" in this opinion. The Restatement is published by the American Law Institute.5 For a well written discussion of the historical development of Tort law, and a research source for thisopinion letter, see: Schneier, Mark M., Construction Accident Law, A Comprehensive Guide to LegalLiability and Insurance Claims, Joint Publication of Forum on the Construction Industry and Tort andInsurance Practice Section of American Bar Association (1999), referred to herein after as ConstructionAccident Law.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 4
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
Owners would not be interfering in the means and methods of their General
Contractors and their Subcontractors by requiring the installation of safety anchors as part
of the basic building design. Of course Contractors installing or subcontracting the
installation of the anchors would have the contractual duty to the Owner and statutory
duties (OSHA and state safety laws) to their employees and common law duties to others
who may be reasonably anticipated to use the anchors, to install them correctly. From an
Owner's perspective there is no significant legal risk in requiring permanent anchors. Of
course, if an Owner knew that an anchor was improperly installed, a duty to correct or
warn would arise. Absent such knowledge, the safety duties during construction would
rest with the General Contractor. If an Owner specified temporary anchors and their
placement with related details, an argument of the Owner's interference or control over
the means and methods of an independent Contractor's work could be made in the event
of an injury related to the anchors attachments, but no such arguments should prevail on
an Owner's requiring permanent anchors.
If workers used the anchors during construction operations, the Owner would not
be responsible for any injuries, any more than the failure of any other portion of the
project. Also the General Contractor's indemnity and insurance obligations would
protect the Owner form such exposure.
The prevailing case law, much of which is based on Section 409 of Restatement
2"d , is that an Owner is not liable for construction accidents because the Contractor is the
temporary possessor of the land and the work is being performed by an independent
Contractor. If an Owner turns over complete control and possession of premises to a
General Contractor for construction the Owner has no liability for construction accidents
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 5
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
unless they arise from known defects 6 . For example, in Privette v. Superior Court, 854
P.2d 721 (Calif 1993) the California Supreme Court abandoned contrary precedent form
earlier cases and held that an Owner would not be subjected to vicarious liability under
the "inherently dangerous work" 7 exception to the general rule of non-liability of one
who hires an independent contractor. The "independent contractor" rule will protect
Owners, subject to exceptions based on "retained control", but that doctrine is weakening
as to Owners 8 and other exceptions discussed herein, such as a "statutory obligation"
exception like New York, which imposes liability on an Owner even though it did not
supervise the work or retain a right of control under New York's Labor Code, §240 and
241, covering scaffolding. 9 This law imposes an absolute duty on Owners and
Contractors.
6 A few cases adopting this premise of non-liability for construction owners injuries during constructionare: California: Smith v AC&S, Cal.Rptr.2d 457 (Cal.App. 4 th, 1994); Georgia: Kraft Gen. Foods v.Maxwell, 464 S.E>2 "d 639 (Ga.App. 1995); Louisiana: Permit v. Bernard Mech. Contractors, 669 S.0.2d599 (La.Ct.App. 1996); Oregon: B. King Construction v. NAT. CSL. On Comp. Ins., 852 P2d 927 (1993);Texas: Koch Ref Co. v. Chapa, 11S.W.3d 153 (Tex.19999); and Washington: Smith v. Mexers, 950 P.2d1018 (1988).For many more citations to cases of many states, see Construction Accident Law, Ch.3,pp.142-143, at fn. 337 and S. Stein, Construction Law, Vol. 2, §10.04[l] at En. 16, pp.10-56, Matt. Bender2002.7 The "inherently dangerous work" exception is based on Section 416, Restatement 2nd. It could be appliedto roofing operations. It is still applied in a few states. See fn. 27.8 The "retained control" doctrine is usually invoked against General Contractors. Decisions in Californiafollowing Privette have protected Owners as innocent principles, but have been less favorable to GeneralContractors under various exceptions to the independent contractor rule, including retained control, andviolation of a non delegable duty imposed by statute.9 Although these provisions primarily cover scaffolding, they are broad enough to cover falls. Section 240of the New York Labor Code provides: "All contractors and owners and their agents...shall furnish orerect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffoldings, hoists, stays,ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, iron, ropes, and other devices which shall be soconstructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed." For cases onactivities covered by the New York Labor Code see: Stein, Construction Law, Vol. 2, § 10.03 at fn. 37,pp.10-41.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 6
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
There is an exception if the Owner retains control of the means and methods of
construction. 10 However, many cases have held that the requiring of work being
performed in accordance with federal or state safety requirements does not create a duty
of the Owner for safety during construction. Tlus principle was discussed by the Texas
Supreme Court in the case of Dow Chemical v. Bright, 89 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2003). In
that case, Bright, an employee of the General Contractor, was injured while working on
Dow's property. Dow, by contract, required the General Contractor to "comply with all
safety rules and regulations of Dow...and all applicable provisions of the federal, state
and municipal safety laws and building codes to prevent accidents or injuries to persons
or damage to property..." The contract also contained the following provision which the
court held did not impose a duty upon the Owner because it did not retain the right to
control the means, methods, or details of the independent Contractor's work:
30.01. Responsibilities-CONTRACTOR shall be an independent Contractor underthis Contract and shall assume all of the rights, obligations, and liabilities,applicable to it as such independent Contractor hereunder and any provisions inthis Contract which may appear to give [OWNER] the right to directCONTRACTOR as to details of doing the work herein covered or to exercise ameasure of control over the work shall be deemed to mean that CONTRACTORshall follow the desires of [OWNER] in the results of the work only.
Bright argued that these provisions gave Dow a right of control, but that argument
was rejected by the Texas Supreme Court stating:
A premises Owner who actually exercises control over the Contractor's work maybe subject to direct liability for negligence. Koch, 11 S.W.3d at 155. However,"merely exercising or retaining a general right to recommend a safe manner forthe independent Contractor's employees to perform their work is not enough tosubject a premises Owner to liability." Id. (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND)
10 In Texas, as well as many of the states, the question of whether or not an owner or Contractor haveretained a "right of control", which could form the basis of liability, is a question of law for the courtinstead of a question of fact for a jury. Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W. 3d 778,783 (Tex.2001).
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 142 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 7
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
OF TORTS § 414 cmt. c (1965)). In addition, "the control must relate to theinjury the negligence causes." Furthermore, if a premises Owner exercises controlby requiring a Subcontractor to comply with its safety regulations, the premisesOwner owes the Subcontractor's employees a narrow duty of care that its safetyrequirements and procedures do not unreasonably increase the probability andseverity of injury. Hoechst-Celanese, 967 S.W.2d at 358; Traylor Bros., Inc. v.
_Garcia 49 S.W. 3d 43Q, 435 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001,pe__t. denied).
89 S.W.3d at 607
In response to Bright's contention that Dow should have stopped the unsafe
practices that caused his injury, the court relying on its earlier decision in Hoecht-
Celanese v. Mendez, 967 S.W. 2d 254 (Tex.1998) [holding the right to stop work in and
of itself does not constitute sufficient control to imposed a duty of care on a construction
Owner] stated:
However, as the Restatement (Second) of Torts states, it is not enough that thepremises Owner has merely a general right to order the work stopped.RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 414 cmt. c (1965). To hold otherwisewould deter General Contractors from setting even minimal safety standards. SeeHoechst-Celanese, 967 S.W.2d at 358. As we stated in Hoechst-Celanese," `[w]e do to believe that a General Contractor or an employer is required to standidly by while another is injured or killed in order to avoid liability. Nor do webelieve that the liability rules contemplate putting those who employ independentContractors in that position.' Id. (quoting Welch v. McDougal, 876 S.W.2d 218,224 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1994, writ denied)).
89 S.W.3d at 607, 608
Cases of other states are generally in accord with the Texas decisions on right of
control or "retained control" theory of Owner liability. The theory is stated in Section 414
of the Restatement (2nd) of Torts as:
One who entrusts work to an independent Contractor, but who retains control ofany part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whosesafety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused byhis failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 8
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
Although case law varies on the amount of control that is required to impose
liability, the great majority of those cases involve the control of a General Contractor
over Subcontractors '' . Also, comment b to Section 414 of Restatement2nd
provides that
the retained_ control is "usually, though_ pot exclusively"applied to General Contractors
instead of Owners.
The general rule of law is simply that an Owner or occupier of land does not owe
any duty to ensure that an independent Contractor performs its work in a safe manner. To
make the Owner liable it must retain control over the methods of performance and then
fail to exercise reasonable care in the details that cause an injury. The retention of control
must be more than the right to start, stop or inspect progress of the work of an
independent Contractor, and it must also "relate to the activity that actually caused the
injury". Coastal Marine Service of Texas v. Lawrence, 988 S.W. 223, 226 (Tex. 1999).
An Owner is further shielded from exposure for job site injuries by its contract
with the General Contractor, which usually requires indemnification, contractual liability
insurance, and often additional insured status under the General Contractor's CGL policy.
Since the General Contractor or its Subcontractors actually install permanent roof
anchors, any liability for improper installation would lie with them - not the Owner,
unless the Owner had actual knowledge of an improperly installed or defective safety
anchor.
' 1 See: Cindy L. Becker, "Retention of Control and Resulting liability in Texas Construction Law", 16 t1i
Annual Construction Law Conference of State Bar of Texas (March 2003) and Joe F. Canterbury, Jr.,Texas Construction Law Manual, 2d ed. S/McGraw-Hill 1992, West Group 2004 Supp. @ §11.04 and§11.04A for a discussion of Texas law of "retained control" cases.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 142 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 9
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
Questions have also been raised on the obligations and liabilities of an Owner
who sells houses with permanent anchors. The Owner's obligations for the integrity of
permanent anchors are the same as any other component of the house. Although no
longer the _"owner"_after a sale, the_Owner must exercise reasonable care and correct or
warn of any known defects. Of course, the Owner has rights against the GC and its
installing Subcontractor depending on contractual terms. Also, an Owner may have direct
rights against these parties' insurance carriers if it is named as an additional insured under
their CGL policies.
Finally, you have been asked about any potential liability of a building owner to
third parties who may use safety anchors following construction. Their liability is based
on a common law duty to warn or deny use if they have knowledge, or by the use of
reasonable diligence should have knowledge, of an improperly attached anchor. This type
of liability is set forth in Section 343 of Restatement 2" d as follows:
A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his inviteesby a condition on the land if, but only if, he
(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, andshould realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail toprotect themselves against it, and
(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.
SUMMARY OF OWNER'S EXPOSURE
An Owner may require permanent anchors with little fear of liability to an
employee injured during construction. An Owner may suggest temporary anchors for
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 10
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
protection of workers and require that construction be performed in accordance with
applicable safety laws without interfering or controlling the means and methods of
construction. That suggestion should require installation in accordance with the
instructions of Super Anchor Safety or_another supplier.
DESIGNPROFESSIONALS
Design professionals would not incur liability for specifying permanent anchors
for any project. If the Architect specified Super Anchor Safety TM roof anchors -- or those
of other manufacturers -- and simply provided that they should be installed in accordance
with "manufacturer's recommendations", no liability should be found on the part of the
design professional for improperly installed anchors. A design professional who does not
inspect the work during construction owes no duty to construction workers for their
safety. There is also substantial precedent holding that an Architect who has a general
contractual responsibility to supervise or inspect construction may not be held liable to
injured workers, absent knowledge of the unsafe conditions causing injury. '2
An old decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in Miller v. DeWitt, 226 N.E.2d
630 (I11.1967) placed a duty on an Architect for safety based on the right to stop the work.
However, that case was based on a contract clause giving the Architect "general
supervision and direction of the work". Such clauses are rare, and other courts have
rejected the duty of a design professional based on a supervision or observation duty. 13
Absent a contractual duty of detailed construction supervision, which is indeed rare, a
1 2 Construction Accident Law Ch.5 at pp.286-287 and cases cited at footnote 154.13 For example, see the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Luterbach v. Mochon, Schutte, et al.,involving the same contract language, but rejecting the Miller decision and refusing to find a duty of anarchitect for job safety based on general duties of supervision.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 I 42\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 1 1
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
design professional has little or no legal risk for construction safety or, in the case of
permanent anchors, safety of future users of safetyanchors. An exceptionwould be an
unlikely situation of a design professional's knowledge of an improperly secured anchor,
and failingto _ require correction or warn of the unsafe condition. '4 However, some states
have even found design professionals free of liability even if they knew of the existence
of a safety hazard. Decisions of Georgia, Nebraska, and Mississippi have held a lack of
duty of a design professional with knowledge of a safety hazard, based on the particular
contracts involved. 15 However, these decisions are the minority view and a prudent
design professional would warn of known safety problems. There is a greater likelihood
of exposure from knowledge that roofers or others are working without fall protection
than any possibility of exposure for an improperly attached roof anchor.
Some cases have been brought against design professionals on the "retained
control" doctrine of Section 414 of Restatement of Torts, but those cases have generally
been unsuccessful on the grounds that the Architect did not retain sufficient control over
the Contractor's work. ' 6 Also limited duties of job site inspection do not make an
Architect subject to OSHA standards. ' The Florida case of Miami v. Perez, 509 SO 2d
343 (Fla.Dist.Ct App 3d Dist. 1987) held that an Architect's on site inspections did not
14 The New Jersey case of Carvallo v. Toll Brothers & Developers, 675 A.2d 209 (N.J. 1996) discusses theliability of a design professional who knew of dangers [unstable trench] and failed to warn or requirecorrection. For a discussion of the Caravello decision concluding that it represents the majority view of adesign professional's liability based on knowledge see: Construction Accident Law, Ch.5, pp. 299-302.15 See: Yow v. Hussey, Gay, etc., 412 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. App. 1991) [architect owed no duty to injuredworker based on AIA Doc. A-201(97ed.) despite knowledge of hazard]; Belgum v. Mitsuo, Kawamoto &Assoc., 459 N.W.2d 226(Neb. 1990) [architect not liable despite knowledge of defective scaffolding]; andJones v. James Reeves Contractors, 701 S.0.2d 774 (Miss. 1997) [non supervising architect not liable forjob injuries despite knowledge of specific danger causing injuries].16 For examples see the Wyoming case ofMakinen v. PMPC, 893 P2d 1149 (Wyo. 1995) and the Indianacase of Teitge v. Remy Const. Co., Inc., 526 N.E.2d 1008, 1014-15 (Ind.Ct.App. 3d Dist. 1988) (architectdid not assume duty for overall safety merely by mentioning safety at progress meetings or by making twosuggestions concerning safety during daily on-site progress inspections.17 Skidmore Owings & Merrill, 15 BNA OSHC 1851 (1992), affd 3F3d 1 (1 St Civ. 1993).
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 12
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
mean that it or the City were active participants in the construction process so as to be
responsiblefor safety- control measures.
-SUMMARY- OF DESIGN-PROFESSION-AM S- EXPOSURE
A design professional that does not provide construction services has no liability
for job site injuries. A typical architectural contract requiring the Architect to generally
observe the progress of the work and to protect the interest of the Owner does not provide
the basis of design professional liability. An Architect may specify the Company's
permanent anchors without incurring liability. Absent knowledge of an improperly
attached anchor, an Architect has no exposure for job site accidents, should one occur
from that condition.
CONSTRUCTIONMANAGERS
A Construction Manger's (C.M.) liability for job site accidents is dependent on the
contract. If a C.M. is merely serving as the Owner's agent or advisor, his exposure would
be minimal and similar to that of a design professional, but an at-risk C.M.'s exposure
would be the same as a General Contractor's liabilities, which are discussed below. '$
C.M.'s are subject to OSHA exposure and an at-risk C.M. can incur OSHA penalties if
fall protection is not provided 19 . It has also been held that a C.M. advisor who performed
no actual construction work is vicariously liable for the failure of trade Contractors to
comply with OSHA standards. 20 A C.M. cannot stand by without taking action if trade
I S See Michael C. Loulakis', Construction Management: Law of Practice at 319-328 for a discussion ofC.M.'s exposure.'y Construction Accident Law, Ch. 7V, pp.413-416.20 Bechtel Power Corp., 4 B.N.A. OSHC 1005 (1976), aff'd 548 F.2d 248 (8th Cir. 1977).
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 13
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
contractors allow their employees to work on roofs without fall protection. The
following--discussion--o-f-General-Contractor' e posu-r-e isapplicable to-C M.'s at-risk.
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
General Contractors ("GC's") that are independent and separate from a
Developer/Owner would not be able to require permanent anchors unless they had a
written change order or written directive from the Owner or its Architect. Many General
Contractors install or sub contract the installation of the Company's permanent anchors.
Their potential exposure for installing anchors is the same as other portions of their work.
If the anchors are not properly installed, the GC is liable to employees of Subcontractors
and others that might be injured because of defective installation.
The tougher question is the potential liabilities of GC's that mandate the
installation and use of the Company's products by Subcontractors. By contract, a GC
who subcontracts the installation of permanent or temporary anchors has the defense of
work by an independent contractor (the installing Subcontractor) 21 . However, the
"retained control" exception to the "independent contractor" defense is applied much
more frequently to GC's than Owners. A GC faces a "retained control" exception if it
specified detailed safety procedures or does nothing in the face of open and obvious
dangers to the employees of its Subcontractors. The reasoning for increased GC liability
over that of an Owner is the GC's knowledge, contractual obligations for safety and
continuous presence on a project. Also, comment b to Section 414 of Restatement 2 t'd sets
71 See f.n. 6 and Section 409, Restatement 2 'd
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 142 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 14
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
the stage for judicial reasoning for applying the "retained control" exception to GC's
becauseif provides:
The rule stated in [section 414] is usually, though not exclusively, applicablewhen a principle contractor entrusts a part of the work to subcontractors, but--- - -himself or through a foreman superintends the entire job. In such a situation, theprinciple contractor is subject to liability if he fails to prevent the subcontractorsfrom doing even the details of the work in a way unreasonably dangerous toothers, if he knows or by the exercise of reasonable care should know thatsubcontractors' work is being so done, and has the opportunity to prevent it byexercising the power of control which he has retained in himself So too, he issubject to liability if he knows or should know that the subcontractors havecarelessly done their work in such a way as to create a dangerous condition, andfails to exercise reasonable care either to remedy it himself or by the exercise ofhis control cause the subcontractor to do so. (Emphasis added.)
Id.; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §414 cmt.b (1965).
Applying the above comment to a situation of a GC's turning a "blind eye" to
roofers, framers, and other workers on sloped roofs with no or inadequate protection,
indicates that a GC may well be in a better legal position by requiring safety anchors than
doing nothing out of fear of assuming "too much control" over Subcontractors' safety
details.
The risk of exposure is increased if the GC mandates the Company's products and
installation requirements instead of merely requiring the Subcontractor to perform its
work "in accordance with all state and safety laws". The increased risk arises out of the
"right of control" or "retained control" doctrine of Section 414 of the Restatement (2 "d) of
Torts. Although the GC can shift the risk of exposure to an installing Subcontractor by
subcontract, it may still be vulnerable to suits of injured employees under the "retained
control" or another exception of the independent contractor rule of Section 409
Restatement 2t'd . The GC is usually protected by the Subcontractor's indemnification
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 15
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
obligations backed up by the contractual liability coverage of the Subcontractor's CGL
-insurance, and perhaps even further protection as an additional insured on the
Subcontractor's CGL policy.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR'SCHOICE
A GC must make a basic decision to rely on the "independent contractor" rule and
try to avoid any control or interference with its Subcontractors operations, or insist that
its Subcontractors provide protections for those working on roofs, even to the point of
requiring the installation of the Company's safety anchors or those of another
manufacturer. Our research reveals that a GC should adopt the position of being pro-
active even if it crosses the line of retained control. Our practical and legal reasons for
this position are:
1. Best Defense is "No Accident"
The best defense of a GC –and all other parties involved in construction - is
that there is no accident to defend. Roofing may certainly be classified as
"dangerous work", which is still an exception to the "independent contractor"
rule. 22 Also, without considering the legal application of the "dangerous work"
exception, anyone knowledgeable in construction knows that work on roofs is
dangerous. Fall protection violations of 29CFR1926.501 were the third most cited
violation in the construction industry for fiscal year 2004, and second in the
amount of penalties assessed. Although these figures include fall protection
22 The "dangerous work" exception is based on Sections 413, 416 and 427 of Restatement 2° d .Itsapplication has declined in recent years. See: Construction Accident Law, Ch. 3, pp.182-196, but is stillapplied in some states.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 142 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 16
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
violations for more than roofing operations, roofing is the highest. Also, roofing
continues to be a major cause of employee deaths, with 94 reported in 2004, an
increase over 55 roofer deaths in 2003. 23 Serious injuries form roofing falls
continue to be a major source of construction accidents. The insisting of safety
anchors by Subcontractors can certainly avoid law suits by preventing accidents
in the first instance.
2. Contractual Obligations of GC for Safety
Most general contracts require GC's to be in charge of job site safety.
For example, AIA Document A-201 (98ed) provides in 10.2.124 :
"The Contractor shall take reasonable precautions for safety of, and shallprovide reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to:
1. employees on the Work and other persons who may be affectedthereby;
2. the Work and materials and equipment to be incorporated therein,whether in storage on or off the site, under care, custody or controlof the Contractor or the Contractor's Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors; and
The terms "employees on the Work and other persons" certainly could
include the employees of independent Subcontractors. Also, Paragraph
10.2.3 of A201 requires the General Contractor to "maintain...reasonable
safeguards for safety and protection, including...promulgating safety
regulations..."; and Paragraph 10.2.6 requires the General Contractor to
23 Les Christie, "America's Most Dangerous Jobs", CNN/MONEY, 08/26/05.24 The authors ofBruner & O'Connor on Construction Law, West 2002, Opine at Vol. 23 5:197 at pp.339-340, "The AIA scheme is quite clear in its approach to safety. The contractor is the party primarilyresponsible for maintaining a safe work site." Language similar to the AIA General Conditions on safety isfound in most housing and multi-family contracts.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 142 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 17
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
"designate a responsible member of the Contractor's organization at the
site whose duty shall be the prevention of accidents."
Also, most subcontracts necessarily give a General Contractor broad
control over a Subcontractor's safety practices, in spite of the typical
language that the Subcontractor is "solely responsible..."
Some courts have applied a "retained control by contract" theory of
liability to GC's based on the terms of the contract between the GC and the
Subcontractor employer of an injured employee. 25 However, others have relied on
the extensive duties for job site safety assumed by a GC for support of liability
under the retained central doctrine 26 , including cases in Arizona (Lewis v. Riebe
Enterprises, 825 P.2d 5 (1992)) and Washington (Kelley v. Howard S. Wright
Construction Co., 582 P.2d 500 (1978); and Massachusetts (Corsetti v. Stone
Company, 483 N.E.2d 793 (1985). Also some states allow an injured
Subcontractor's employees to sue the GC on the peculiar risk or dangerous work
exception27 .
To comply with its contract, a GC has safety duties, including roofing
operations, even if those duties have been subcontracted. Those contractual
25An examination of Texas case law reveals that the right of control must be found in the specific contract
between a general contractor and its subcontractor as opposed to the duties assumed by the generalcontractor in its prime contract. For example, see Elliott-Williams Co., Inc. v. Diaz, 9 S.W.3d 801 (Tex1999).26 In Smith v. U.S., 497 F.2d 500 (5 th Cir. 1974), the extent of contractual safety duties was used to hold aGC liable on a federal project for job injuries even thought the entire job was subcontracted.27 Construction Accident Law, Ch.3, p.143 cites cases at FN's339-343 holding direct liability of the GC onthe "dangerous work" exception from Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 18
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
obligations can form the basis in some states for a GC's exposure to suits from
employees of Subcontractors.
3. OSHA and State Safety Laws Place Safety Duties on GC's
GC's are frequently held liable for those Subcontractor violations that are
known or by the use of reasonable diligence should have been known, and even
for latent violations of their Subcontractors. In Secretary of Labor v. Blount
International,28
the GC was assessed OSHA penalties because its electrical
Subcontractor had installed an electrical panel distribution box that had some
outlets not protected by ground-fault interrupters. In affirming the Secretary of
Labor's position, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
conceded that the electrical Subcontractor's violations were latent, but relying on
testimony that a GFCI system was basic knowledge of Contractors on all job sites,
affirmed the citations against Blount. Blount's argument that it was entitled to
rely on the assumption that its electrical Subcontractor complied with the
appropriate OSHA standard was rejected. Of course, since work on roofs is open
and obvious, liability of a GC would be much easier to prove if no fall protection
was used by the roofing Subcontractor's employees or any other workers on
roofs.
Although subsequent decisions have held General Contractors were not
responsible for latent conditions, the facts of those cases reveal an active safety
program and frequent inspections by the General Contractors. For example, in
2815 BNA OSHC 1897 (OSHRC 1992).
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 142 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 19
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch . Surratt
Centex-Rooney Constr. co.'', the general contractor was cited for perimeter
guarding violations and GFCI violations of Subcontractors. The Review
Commission affirmed the perimeter guarding citations for lack of enforcement
when Subcontractors removed but did not replace guardrails, but dismissed the
GFCI violations on proof that the Contractor conducted random inspections of the
electrical outlets more than once a month. The perimeter guarding violations of
the Subcontractors in Centex-Rooney were similar to a roofing Subcontractor's
failing to require full protections. The GC would be held vicariously liable for
OSHA or comparable state safety law penalties.
GC's must be involved in their Subcontractors' safety compliance to avoid
OSHA citations. Also General Contractors, by OSHA standards, have ultimate
responsibility for job site safety.
A basic premise of General Contractor liability is premised on the rules of
construction of OSHA's Construction Standards, 29 C.F.R. 1926:
1926.16(a)
The prime contractor and any subcontractors may maketheir own arrangements with respect to obligations whichmight be more appropriately treated on a jobsite basisrather than individually. Thus, for example, the primecontractor and his subcontractors may wish to make anexpress agreement that the prime contractor or one of thesubcontractors will provide all required first-aid or toiletfacilities, thus relieving the subcontractors from the actual,but not any legal, responsibility (or, as the case may be,relieving the other subcontractors from this responsibility).In no case shall the prime contractor be relieved of overallresponsibility for compliance with the requirements of thispart for all the work to be performed under the contract.
29 16 BNA OSHC 2127 (OSHRC 1997).
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 20
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
1926.16(b)
By contracting for full performance of a contract subject tosection 107 of the Act, the prime contractor assumes allobligations prescribed as employer obligations under thestandards contained in this part, whether or not hesubcontracts any part of the work.
Necessarily, a General Contractor must have a substantial right of control
over Subcontractors' safety procedures. In fulfilling OSHA obligations, can a
General Contractor assume "too much" control over Subcontractors' means and
methods and thereby incur tort liability? Assuming control over the means and
methods of a Subcontractor's performance can result in liability under traditional
common law principles. However, a "don't see -- don't interfere" policy will not
work on multi-employer construction sites. If a GC sees roofers without adequate
protection, action should be taken to avoid vicarious OSHA citations. Contractors
and their supervisors cannot engage in speculation of how much control is too
much when workers are exposed to danger of harm or death. They must act!
In addition to the potential for vicarious liability, a GC has direct
obligations to provide safety protections for its own employees. Therefore, if a
GC's superintendent needs to be on a roof for inspection or any other reason, the
requiring of safety anchors, installed by the GC or subcontracted to a roofing or
framing Contractor, would fulfill a GC obligations under OSHA and state safety
laws.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 21
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
4. Possibility of Retained Control Exposure
Even in states that have favorable case law for GC's on right of control or
retained control, allowing Subcontractors to engage in unsafe practices such as allowing
their employees to work without proper fall protections can lead to a GC's tort liability
for injuries or death of the offending Subcontractor's employees. A GC's problem is
illustrated by the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v.
Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2001). In that case the court upheld a $12.5 million dollar
jury verdict in favor of the survivors of a Subcontractor's employee against a General
Contractor, Lee Lewis Construction (LLC). Harrison, who worked for KK Glass, a
Subcontractor on the job, suffered fatal injuries after falling from the 10th floor where he
was working.
Testimony by LLC employees and experts indicated that if a lifeline had been
used , it would have prevented Harrison's death. Testimony also indicated that "an
effective fall protection system would have mandated using independent lifelines." LLC
hired one of its superintendents to supervise the work, and to ensure that the proper safety
procedures were being followed. The superintendent observed KK Glass employees using
a bosun's chair (a wooden board suspended from the roof by a rope) and lanyard system
but failing to use lifelines or safe work platforms. The superintendent did not require the
employees to use an independent lifeline, even though such lifelines were mandatory for
all LLC employees. There was also ample evidence to prove that LLC was aware of the
extreme danger involved in the job.
The court restated the rule that a General Contractor does not owe a duty to
ensure the work is performed in a safe manner unless the Contractor retains control over
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7I42 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 22
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
the work. (If the Contractor does exercise control over the work, the Contractor could be
liable for failing to use reasonable care in supervising the activity. Elliott-Williams Co.,
Inc. v. Diaz, 9 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 1999); Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.
1985).) The court held that the evidence was sufficient to conclude that LLC had retained
control over the safety procedures used by KK Glass and other Subcontractors, and could
therefore be held liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in supervising KK's
procedures. LLC was held grossly negligent based on its imputed awareness of the extreme
risks involved, and its failure to take the proper safety precautions and ensure that they
were followed by Subcontractors.
Since there is a risk of liability, the prudent GC would be wise to require fall
protection by its Subcontractors. Washington law places a non delegable duty on GC's to
provide a safe work place (State v. P.B.M.C., 788 P.2d 545 (1990)). A GC's requirement
that its Subcontractors furnish safety equipment, including fall protection, could help the
GC avoid liability because the contract terms could be admitted in evidence. 30 To prove
that the GC met his duties under WISHA regulations "to furnish safety equipment or to
contractually require Subcontractors to furnish adequate safety equipment relevant to their
responsibilities." Therefore, GC's in Washington seem to have no fear of increased legal
risks by requiring the use of Super Anchors TM , since they have the ultimate duty for job
safety. The case of State v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wash.2d 454, 463-64 (1990) held that GC's
in Washington have a duty to furnish adequate safety equipment or to "contractually"
require that their Subcontractors do so. A review of cases of various states reveals that the
30 See Washington Court of Appeals decision in Dergroot v. Berkley Construction, Inc., 920 P.2d 619(Wash. App. Div. 3, 1996) [subcontract requiring subcontractor to provide safety equipment; comply withsafety regulations; and to "protect its own employees, employees of contractor, and all other persons fromrisk of death, injury or bodily harm", is as allowed in evidence to show that General Contractor hadfulfilled duties under WISHA.]
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 142 \Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 23
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
emphasis of vicarious liability under Section 414 of Restatement 2 "d is much more likely
for GC's than Owners, as discussed above at page 13.
Another state placing ultimate responsibility for job safety on the GC is Michigan. 31
Most safety laws also place general job duties on the GC. For example, Washington places
specific duties on GC's for compliance with fall protection 32 .
SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR'SEXPOSURE
In view of the chances that a court would find liability of a GC under an established
exception to the "independent contractor" defense such as "retained control", "dangerous
activity" of roofing work, is in violation of a "statutory duty" (OSHA and various state
safety laws) or some other exception, and the vicarious exposure to penalties under OSHA
or state safety laws, it is our opinion that any risk of increased liability under the retained
control doctrine pales in comparison to the benefits of requiring the use of the Company's
safety anchors, or those of some other manufacturers.
SUBCONTRACTORS
Liability for improperly installed anchors for injuries to users would fall on the
installing Subcontractor. Rather installed to protect its own employees or as subcontracted
from a GC, an installing Subcontractor (usually roofers or framers) should install the
Company's anchors pursuant to the Company's instructions and inspect the framing to
which they are attached. Subcontractors whose employees use roof anchors for fall
protection have safety duties pursuant to their subcontracts and state and federal safety laws
to avoid falls by their employees and all others that may use the anchors. If permanent
31 Funk v. General Motors, 220 N.W.2d 641 (1974). [court stated that "part of the business of the generalcontractor was to assure reasonable steps...to guard against readily observable, avoidable dangers..."]32 RCW 48.17006(2).
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper,doc 24
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
anchors are not allowed, temporary anchors must be used, spaced as recommended by the
Company in its installation instructions.33
CONCLUSION
Owners and their Architects have little to fear in specifying the Company's products for
permanent components of their buildings. The specifying of only the Company's
temporary anchors could lead to an increased chance of exposure under the "retained
control" doctrine, but requiring the GC to comply with state and federal safety laws with a
suggestion of the Company's permanent anchors would not amount to "retention of
control". A GC has to make a decision to avoid specific requirements of fall protection or
to be pro-active. Our opinion is that a pro-active GC - even to the point of requiring use of
the Company's safety anchors- leaves less risk in most states than doing nothing. Also to
comply with OSHA and state safety laws, GC's must prevent obvious dangers to
employees such as roofers without safety lines and anchors to secure them. They must stop
such work until fall protection is provided.
On a final note, the legal position of all parties is best if no one falls. The prevention
of falls should get past "what if s" and legalized ponderings of the unlikely situation of an
anchor failing because of improper attachment.
Yours very truly,CANTERBURY, STUBER, ELDER,GOOCH & SURRATT, P.C.
33 Although we think the Company's safety anchors are superior to other tie off points for workers on roofsof wood framed buildings, we do not mean to imply they are the only acceptable method of protection.
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7142\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 25
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch Surratt
Joe F. Canterbury, Jr. is a founding shareholder of the Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch& Surratt, P.C. He represented Connell Construction Company before the United StatesSupreme Court and won the first case in the United States placing unions under antitrustlaws for unilateral union action since the enactment of the Norris-La Guardia Act in1932. Connell Const. v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, 421 U.S. 616(1975).
Mr. Canterbury is a noted author and lecturer on construction and labor and employmentlaw issues. He is the author of the Texas Construction law Manual, and is acontributing author to several other construction law publications. He frequently speaksto national, state and local bar associations, as well as various trade associationsregarding construction and labor and employment law issues.
Mr. Canterbury has been Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the TexasBoard of Legal Specialization since 1975. He is also a frequent arbitrator and mediator ofconstruction-related disputes.
Canterbury, Stuber, Elder, Gooch, & Surratt, P.C. opened its doors on February 1, 1981as Canterbury and Elder with four attorneys practicing primarily in the area ofconstruction law. Today, the Finn has grown to 15 attorneys and has over 200 years ofcombined experience representing the legal interests of its clients on a local, state, andnational level. Located in Dallas, Texas, many of the Firm's attorneys have substantialexperience in complex construction litigation, arbitration, and mediation.
The Finn's primary practice area continues to be construction law and litigation. Many ofthe Firm's clients include general contractors, subcontractors, owners, sureties, andconstruction industry trade associations. However, our practice areas are not limited toconstruction law. The Firm has continually expanded into the areas of labor andemployment law, real estate, corporate law, personal injury, and business litigation.
Many of the Finn's attorneys are frequent speakers before national, state, and localconstruction industry associations in addition to various programs sponsored by theAmerican Bar Association and the State Bar of Texas. Several Shareholders in the Finnserve as arbitrators and mediators through the American Arbitration Association.
The Firm's practice areas include:
■ Construction Litigation in Federal, State, and Administrative Courts■ Negotiation and Drafting of Contract Documents■ Labor and Employment Law■ Arbitration and Mediation■ Real Estate Law■ Corporate Law■ Business Litigation■ Mechanic's and Materialman's Lien Claims■ Performance and Payment Bond Claims■ Claims Preparation and Analysis■ Bid Protests
W:\Super Anchor Safety-7 I 42\Super Anchor Safety Opinion Paper.doc 26