Baird, B. v. Smiley, P.
169 A.3d 120
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Brian Baird (employee of subcontractor Chris Fisher) was injured when a partially-installed set of 4 roof trusses collapsed during installation of a pole building; Fairman’s manufactured and delivered bowed trusses to general contractor Patrick Smiley (Tri-County), who hired Fisher as primary builder.
- Fairman’s warned Smiley in writing to retain an engineer to design a bracing plan and to supervise installation; Smiley approved truss specifications and ordered the trusses but did not routinely supervise the jobsite.
- Fisher supervised the crew, directed on-site bracing, interacted with Fairman’s delivery representative, and continued installation despite difficulties; Fisher’s crew set most trusses and failed to follow some bracing instructions.
- Plaintiffs (Bairds) sued Smiley and Fairman’s (among others). After plaintiffs rested, the trial court granted Smiley’s oral motion for compulsory nonsuit; the jury nonetheless returned a verdict against Fairman’s for $501,107.41.
- Plaintiffs moved to remove the nonsuit as to Smiley, arguing Fairman’s might present evidence implicating Smiley and that genuine issues of Smiley’s control existed; the trial court and this panel affirmed the nonsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by granting nonsuit for Smiley before other defendants presented evidence | Baird: improper because Fairman’s might tortiously implicate Smiley; Fairman’s had warned Smiley to retain an engineer | Smiley: Fairman’s did not oppose the motion and did not intend to present evidence against Smiley; evidence showed Fisher controlled installation | Court: Nonsuit proper — Fairman’s on-record non-opposition reasonably indicated it would not present evidence implicating Smiley, satisfying Rule 230.1(c) in context |
| Whether Smiley owed a duty to plaintiff based on retained control/supervision of truss installation | Baird: Smiley retained control (approved specs, ordered trusses, told crew to continue despite bows, later hired engineer) so duty existed | Smiley: Duties were delegated to Fisher; Smiley did not supervise site or control manner/method of work | Court: No duty — evidence showed full delegation to Fisher; Smiley lacked control/right of supervision required to impose duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Scampone v. Highland Park Care Ctr., 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (standard and review for compulsory nonsuit in multi-defendant cases)
- Leonard v. Commonwealth, 771 A.2d 1238 (Pa. 2001) (general contractor may delegate safety responsibilities; delegation defeats presumed control)
- Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc., 11 A.3d 456 (Pa. 2011) (general contractor owes duty only where it retained control over manner and method of work)
- Mazza v. Mattiace, 425 A.2d 809 (Pa. Super. 1981) (nonsuit may be granted for one defendant if others cannot or will not tortiously implicate that defendant)
- Ptak v. Mason Town Men’s Softball League, 607 A.2d 297 (Pa. Super. 1992) (appropriate to deny nonsuit where other defendants intend to present evidence implicating moving defendant)