Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc.
43 A.3d 479
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Worthington Associates, Inc. hired as general contractor for a church project; Patton Construction, Inc. (owned by Patton) served as carpentry subcontractor.
- Patton sustained severe injuries when a scissor lift fell into uncovered holes in the hall floor after elevator equipment was placed on the floor.
- Patton and his wife sued Worthington for negligent failure to provide a safe workplace and to cover the holes.
- Worthington moved for summary judgment claiming statutory employer immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act; the trial court denied.
- A jury trial held in November 2009 resulted in a verdict finding Patton an independent contractor, 80% fault to Worthington and 20% to Patton; damages totaled $1.2 million before post-trial adjustments.
- The trial court later molded the verdict to $1,528,006.54; Worthington appealed asserting errors in the statutory-employer analysis, jury instructions, and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JNOV prelude on McDonald test was proper | Patton argues McDonald test applies after determining employer status. | Worthington argues Lascio requires no screening question, and McDonald governs immunity if status proven. | Screening question proper; independent contractor status needed first. |
| Whether a new trial is required due to jury instruction on employment status | Patton contends instructions adequately guided assessment of independent contractor vs. employee. | Worthington contends instructions were confusing and insufficient to apply the McDonald factors. | No error; instruction properly conveyed factors and status was a factual question for the jury. |
| Whether judgment n.o.v. or new trial is required on hole/open condition standard | Patton asserts hole not obvious given circumstances; RESTATEMENT 343A/f acts do not bar duty. | Worthington asserts hole was open and obvious and Patton knew of danger. | Trial court correctly denied JNOV; Restatement analysis supports duty to exercise reasonable care under circumstances. |
| Whether the $1.5 million verdict was excessive | Patton argues damages supported by evidence of permanent injury and impact on life. | Worthington contends verdict is grossly excessive under common-law standards and Smalls factors. | No abuse of discretion; damages supported by evidence of permanent injury and life impacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peck v. Delaware County Bd. of Prison Inspectors, 814 A.2d 185 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (independent contractor status cannot be statutorily immunized)
- McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A.2d 424 (Pa. 1930) (five-element statutory-employer test)
- Lascio v. Belcher Roofing Corp., 704 A.2d 642 (Pa. Super. 1997) (contractual labels do not control classification; look to contract as a whole)
- Travaglia v. C.H. Schwertner & Son, Inc., 570 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1989) (five elements of McDonald test for statutory-employer)
- Zimmerman v. Commonwealth, Public Sch. Employes' Retirement Bd., 522 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1987) (Zimmerman factors for independent contractor vs employee)
- Joseph v. United Workers Ass'n, 23 A.2d 470 (Pa. 1942) (master-servant control essential for employment relationship)
- Weatherly Area Sch. Dist. v. Whitewater Challengers, Inc., 616 A.2d 622 (Pa. 1992) (control and right to control determine contractor vs servant)
- Sellers v. Hyrcza, 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009) (factors for evaluating damages awards; not dispositive)