The Scaffold Collapse and the Unseen Defect
Owner hired General Contractor to build a warehouse. General subcontracted steel erection to Sub. Sub's foreman saw a visibly cracked weld on a temporary scaffold at 4:45 p.m. but left without repairing it because his shift ended at 5:00. General's employee had stacked heavy beams on the scaffold platform, exceeding the load limit by 30%. Engineer had designed the scaffold with a safety factor of 2.0, but the design assumed no stored materials. Owner had a contractual right to inspect the site weekly but conducted no inspections. P, Sub's employee, had been warned by a co-worker that the scaffold was 'shaky' and continued working. It collapsed, injuring P. P's medical bills are $150,000 and lost wages $50,000; pain and suffering are $200,000. P was 20% at fault. Workers' compensation paid $100,000. The jurisdiction uses pure comparative negligence, retains joint and several liability for defendants who act in concert, and applies several liability otherwise. Workers' compensation subrogation applies.
1. Discuss the duty owed to P by Owner, General, Sub, and Engineer.
Read the worked answer
Owner: as premises owner, Owner owes a duty to employees of contractors to warn of hidden dangers or to exercise reasonable care in inspections it undertook. A contractual right to inspect does not by itself create a duty, but if Owner retained control or knew of the overload, liability could attach. On these facts, Owner likely has no breach absent actual or constructive knowledge. General: General created the hazard by stacking beams beyond the load limit. It owes a duty to all workers on the site to exercise reasonable care in its operations and to keep common areas safe. It breached that duty. Sub: Sub is P's employer. It owes a workers' compensation duty and is generally immune from tort suit. Its foreman's actual knowledge of the cracked weld might support a claim only if the injury was intentionally caused, which is not shown. Engineer: Engineer owes a professional duty to design a scaffold reasonably safe for its intended use. The design assumed no stored materials; the 30% overload was not within that assumption. If the safety factor of 2.0 was adequate absent misuse, Engineer did not breach. If the design should have anticipated reasonable storage, there may be breach. Causation: the collapse was caused by the combined crack and overload; both are substantial factors. P's warning and continuation may support comparative fault.
2. How should liability and damages be apportioned among the defendants and P?
Read the worked answer
Under pure comparative negligence, P's recovery is reduced by 20%. Sub is immune as employer, so its share is not part of the tort apportionment. General is liable for its employee's overload. Owner may be liable only if it breached a duty; on these facts, likely not. Engineer may be liable only if the design was defective; likely not. If only General is liable, General pays 80% of P's total damages. If General and Sub acted in concert, joint and several liability would apply, but they did not. Several liability means each defendant pays only its percentage. The jury should allocate fault among P, General, and any other culpable actor, but not Sub if immune. Damages: medical $150,000 plus lost wages $50,000 plus pain and suffering $200,000 equals $400,000. P's 20% reduction leaves $320,000. If General is 100% of the remaining fault, it owes $320,000.
3. What effect does the workers' compensation payment have on P's recovery?
Read the worked answer
The $100,000 workers' compensation payment does not reduce the tortfeasor's liability under the collateral source rule, but the employer or carrier has a subrogation lien. P must repay the $100,000 from the tort recovery. If P recovers $320,000 from General, the carrier takes $100,000, leaving P $220,000, subject to the statutory formula and attorney's fees. Sub's immunity prevents P from suing Sub in tort, but the carrier may have no tort claim against Sub. If General settles, the lien must be protected. The net recovery must be computed after the comp lien and the 20% comparative reduction, not before both; otherwise P would double-recover medical expenses.