C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub
22 A.3d 867
| Md. | 2011Background
- C & M built floors with unguarded stairwell openings and left them uncovered for Bayside's staircase subcontractor.
- Three weeks later Bayside contracted Comfort Masters; HVAC work commenced before the staircase installation.
- Comfort Masters employees used ladders and moved materials through the open stairwells; Nocar died after the ladder failed.
- Strub sought to introduce MOSHA/OSHA expert testimony that C & M violated regulations; trial court limited testimony to industry standards only.
- Trial evidence showed C & M created openings but had relinquished control of the site at the time of the accident.
- The circuit court denied a defense motion for judgment; the jury found C & M not negligent; on appeal, the intermediate court reversed in part regarding MOSHA evidence and assumed risk issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty under MOSHA/OSHA to non-employees | Strub: creating employer owes MOSHA duty to non-employees at multi-employer site. | C & M: MOSHA duties run to employees only; no creating-employer duty to Nocar. | No creating-employer duty; MOSHA/OSHA evidence inadmissible to establish standard of care. |
| Admissibility of MOSHA/OSHA regulations as standard of care evidence | Leisenring testimony should show statutory violations as evidence of standard of care. | Regulations are evidence only if applicable to the plaintiff's class; not here since Nocar was not an employee. | OSHA/MOSH regulations not admissible to establish duty; regulations may be evidence of standards only if applicable. |
| Assumption of risk as a defense | Assumption of risk contested; not appropriate as law here given unknown specifics of fall. | Nocar knowingly exposed himself to risk and thus assumption of risk bars recovery as a matter of law. | Assumption of the risk established as a matter of law; trial court should have granted judgment for C & M. |
| Judgment posture | Issues of duty and risk are jury questions unless clear evidence supports otherwise. | When facts show voluntary confrontation of known risk, court should decide as a matter of law. | Judgment reversed; remanded to reinstate circuit court judgment in favor of C & M. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strub v. C & M Builders, LLC, 415 Md. 607 (2011) ( Maryland Supreme Court decision at issue)
- Murphy v. Stuart M. Smith, Inc., 53 Md. App. 640 (1983) (creating vs. controlling hazard; employer liability framework)
- Brady v. Parsons Co., 327 Md. 275 (1992) (OSHA/MOSHA standards admissible to assist; not dispositive)
- Cotillo v. American Powerlifting, 401 Md. 658 (2007) (objective knowledge/appreciation standard for assumption of risk)
- BG & E v. Thompson, 57 Md. App. 642 (1984) (control of work area informs liability for hazardous conditions)