Alphonso Jones, et al. v. Intech Construction Inc., et al., Philadelphia County, C.C.P., December Term, 2011, No. 3773
On January 30, 2014, the Honorable John M. Younge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Rawle & Henderson’s client, a major national upscale hotel chain, in the matter of Alphonso Jones v. Intech Construction, et al. In the case, plaintiff was working as an ironworker performing renovations to the Lafayette Building at 5th and Chestnut Streets in Philadelphia. While working on the basement level under the sidewalk, a granite base stone broke free, falling on the plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered significant injuries, including amputation of his right leg and crush fractures of the left leg.
Co-defendant, Intech Construction Inc., was the general contractor on the site and several subcontractors were also named as defendants. Our client owned the property and maintained an on-site presence during the course of the construction. Plaintiff was represented by Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendeski.
In the course of nearly two years of discovery, Rawle & Henderson LLP worked to support the defense under the Owner Out of Possession Doctrine. It is well settled in Pennsylvania that “liability cannot be imposed on a property owner who hires an independent contractor to perform work unless the owner controlled the ‘manner, methods, means, or operative detail in which the work is performed.’” Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc., 11 A.3d 456, 471 (Pa. 2011).
The foundation of this principle is longstanding in Pennsylvania. A property owner is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor because engaging an independent contractor “implies that the contractor is independent in the manner of doing the work contracted for. How can the other party control the contractor who is engaged to do the work, and who presumably knows more about doing it than the man who by contract authorized him to do it? Responsibility goes with authority.” Silveus v. Grossman, 307 Pa. 272, 278, 161 A. 362, 364 (1932).
Significantly in our case, the contract itself provided support for this position, stating: “The Contractor shall be solely responsible for and have control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the Work under the Contract.” With this defense in mind throughout the discovery period, compelling evidence was amassed demonstrating that Kimpton had indeed transferred day-to-day control of the project entirely to Intech despite having representatives present.
At the close of discovery, we requested voluntary dismissal. When counsel refused, we were forced to pursue a Motion for Summary Judgment. On the same date that all other Motions for Summary Judgment filed by co-defendants were denied, our motion was granted. All claims and crossclaims asserted against our client in the multi-million dollar suit were dismissed.