Docos v. John Moriarty & Associates, Inc.
940 N.E.2d 501
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Docos, a carpenter, sued Moriarty and Penney for injuries from a stack of sheetrock collapsing at a Boston Children’s Hospital project.
- The project had persistent debris problems; Moriarty’s supervisor admitted hazardous debris conditions and failure to report them per Moriarty’s safety program.
- Debris impeded construction progress and workers, including Docos, complained about hazards.
- On January 14, 2003, Docos was reconfiguring walls in a room with sheetrock leaning nearby, Penney’s toolbox in the room, and substantial debris on the floor.
- Docos pulled the sheetrock to look behind it, the rock fell, he was pinned against the toolbox, and debris prevented his escape, causing knee injury and economic harm.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the appeals court reviews duties, breaches, and causation de novo and remands for further fact-finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to remedy open debris danger | Moriarty knew of debris and breached safety policy. | Open and obvious danger negates duty. | Issue triable; duty to remedy may exist despite open danger. |
| Moriarty's breach related to debris and causation | Debris condition caused or contributed to injury; Moriarty failed to address. | No proof debris caused injuries or that Moriarty breached duty. | Triable issues on breach, causation, and damages; not proper to grant summary judgment. |
| Penney's duty and nexus to debris | Toolbox presence and debris may have contributed to danger; Penney liable. | No sufficient nexus between Penney and debris; toolbox not shown to create danger or breach. | Summary judgment for Penney proper. |
| Remand scope and standards | Standard safety practices and company policy apply; need full trial on duties and damages. | Defenses remain; trial on remand limited by record. | Remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368 (Mass. 2010) (duty to remedy open and obvious dangers when foreseeability and risk warrant action)
- O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201 (Mass. 2000) (open and obvious dangers do not always negate duty)
- Soederberg v. Concord Greene Condominium Assn., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 333 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (reason to expect a visitor will encounter the danger may create a duty to remedy)
- Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368 (Mass. 2010) (quoted standard on duty and hazard in workplace context)
- Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 376 Mass. 874 (Mass. 1978) (unavoidable workplace hazards in products context)