Without a duty, there can be no liability for general contractor.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant general contractor in this personal injury suit brought by a subcontractor’s employee who was injured on the job site. The court found the general contractor did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The motion court reasoned it would be typically inequitable to impose such a duty on a general contractor because it is far removed from daily work activities. The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed, holding that a general contractor’s liability for injury suffered by a subcontractor’s employee on a job site depends upon whether: (1) the injury was foreseeable; (2) the general contractor and subcontractor shared a close relationship; and (3) the general contractor had the “opportunity and capacity” to exercise authority over the construction site. Therefore, a general contractor does not have an automatic duty of care to maintain a hazard-free work environment, unless it shares a special relationship with its subcontractor and has authority of the work. This case serves as a reminder that, without a duty, there can be no liability. It is always critical as defense counsel to analyze the legal relationship between the parties prior to the summary judgment stage of litigation.

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2019}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}