Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
70 S.W.3d 778 | Texas Supreme Court | 2002
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A worker employed by a glass subcontractor died after falling from the tenth floor of a hospital construction project. The general contractor (Lee Lewis Construction) was sued for negligence and gross negligence. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that because the general contractor retained control over fall-protection safety measures on the job, it owed a legal duty to protect the subcontractor's employee. The court upheld a $12.9 million judgment against the general contractor, establishing that general contractors cannot escape liability for safety by simply hiring subcontractors.
Key Takeaways
- •General contractors who retain control over safety systems—including fall protection—are legally responsible for subcontractor employee safety, even if a subcontractor is directly employing the worker.
- •Document in writing which party controls specific safety measures. If you're a subcontractor, clarify in your contract that you retain control of your own fall-protection systems to reduce the general contractor's claimed authority over your safety practices.
- •Ensure your insurance and contract terms address flow-down safety requirements. General contractors will likely require subcontractors to maintain specific safety standards; get these in writing and confirm your insurance covers the required protections.
General contractor retained right to control fall-protection systems and owed duty of care.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a general contractor be held responsible for injuries to my employees if I'm a subcontractor?
Yes, if the general contractor retains control over safety measures like fall protection. Even though you employ your workers, the general contractor can be liable if it directed or controlled how safety was implemented on the job. Protect yourself by clearly stating in your contract that you control your own safety systems and require the general contractor to acknowledge this in writing.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.