definition of scaffold having to do with court

#DEFINITION OF SCAFFOLD HAVING TO DO WITH COURT TRIAL#

The Superior Court’s decision reaffirms the principle set forth in Corsetti and its progeny that a general contractor may only be held liable to a subcontractor’s injured employer where it exercised or retained meaningful control through contract or its actions on the jobsite. Thus, the court found the State Regulation did not impose a duty of care for supervision of safety on the defendant general contractor. Accordingly, the State Regulation cited by the plaintiff, at Section 10.03(9), is inapplicable as the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant. However, the State Regulation applies in the context of the employer-employee relationship. The plaintiff additionally argued the defendant, as general contractor, had a nondelegable duty of care for the overall safety of persons on the jobsite under the State Regulation. In sum, the framing subcontractor was responsible for the means, manner, and methods of its work as well as the safety measures employed. The defendant did not give direction to the plaintiff, his employer, or any of its employees.

#DEFINITION OF SCAFFOLD HAVING TO DO WITH COURT TRIAL#

Moreover, the evidence at trial established the defendant did not retain control, by contract or in practice, the work of plaintiff’s employer. Here, the defendant had no written contract with the plaintiff’s employer and the oral agreement between the parties did not establish any obligation on the defendant to direct or control subcontractor’s work or the safety of that work. Thus, only by retaining sufficient control over the subcontractor’s framing work, or the safety of that work, would the defendant owe a legal duty to the plaintiff. 1, 10 (1985)(adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414). Under Massachusetts case law, a general contractor has a duty to its subcontractor’s employees if it “retains the right to control the work in any of its aspects, including the right to initiate and maintain safety measures and programs” Corsetti v.

Fall protection, however, was made available by the plaintiff’s employer who also supplied all tools and equipment necessary to frame the home. The scaffold, which met the definition of a scaffold under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s regulations, had no guard rails and the plaintiff was not using fall protection. The scaffold was constructed a day or days prior by the plaintiff’s employer and stood no more than six feet above the floor below. The plaintiff alleged permanent disability preventing him from any meaningful employment.

The plaintiff, an experienced carpenter and framer, severely injured his left foot and knee after stepping off the end of a saw-horse scaffold (the “scaffold”) while marking the roof’s ridge beam for the installation of the single-family home’s roof. Specifically, plaintiff claimed the defendant had a non-delegable duty to inspect, supervise, and ensure all appropriate safety regulations and OSHA standards were being utilized, including those set forth in 454 CMR § 10.00 (the “State Regulation”). Plaintiff, an employer of the framing subcontractor, alleged the defendant owed him a duty of care to supervise the framing and safety measures utilized by his employer. The matter involved plaintiff, a thirty-five-year-old experienced framer, who brought a claim for negligence against the defendant, general contractor, resulting from an injury he sustained while performing framing work at a residential construction site.

1781-cv-01156, Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP prevailed on a motion for involuntary dismissal following the conclusion of the first civil bench trial held in Middlesex County Superior Court since the courts closed in March 2020 due to Covid-19. In a Massachusetts trial court action, Timothy Lyons v.

Definition of scaffold having to do with court