Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc.
11 A.3d 456
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Lafayette College hired Telesis Construction as general contractor to renovate the Acopian Building; CMA designated Telesis as manager responsible for means and methods.
- College separately contracted with Masonry Preservation Services to restore stonework; MPS provided scaffolding and Beil was a Kunsman Roofing employee.
- Beil, a Kunsman roofer, fell from a scaffold while Beil carried termination bars in the rain, sustaining serious injuries.
- Beil filed suit in 2005 against College, Telesis, and MPS, asserting negligence and a strict liability claim against MPS; Beil's wife sought loss of consortium.
- College moved for summary judgment arguing non-liability as owner of premises and lack of retained control; motion denied.
- Trial in 2006 resulted in a verdict against all defendants; College’s post-trial motions sought JNOV, new trial, or remittitur; Superior Court later reversed and remanded for JNOV in College’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retained control exception applies | Beil argues College retained control over safety and site. | College contends it did not retain control over means/methods. | No retained control; College not liable under §414. |
| Whether the evidence viewed favorably supports liability | Appellants contend evidence shows control and safety directives. | College argues evidence shows contractor control; insufficient ownership-level supervision. | Evidence viewed in favor of verdict winners does not show control sufficient for liability. |
| Whether Restatement §414 and Byrd/Farabaugh principles require liability | Beil relies on 414 and Byrd to argue control. | College relies on Farabaugh/LaChance distinction and narrow application of control. | Court adopts narrow §414 control standard; no duty imposed on College as owner. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm., 590 Pa. 46 (Pa. 2006) (retained control over safety matters does not create liability)
- Byrd v. Merwin, 456 Pa. 516 (Pa. 1974) (direct instruction by owner to subcontractor can create liability)
- Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co., 410 Pa.139 (Pa. 1963) (control focused on manner of work, not site visits or safety notices)
- LaChance v. Michael Baker Corp., 869 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (distinguishes regulation of building use from control of work methods)