John Berry | Freeman Mathis & Gary
A recent decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court provides important guidance on when a general contractor may be liable for injuries sustained by a subcontractor’s employee on a construction project. In Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc., the SJC clarified that the key inquiry is not who generally oversees the project, but who actually controls the specific safety practice that led to the injury. The decision offers valuable lessons for general contractors, property owners, developers, insurers, and risk managers operating in Massachusetts construction projects.
The case arose from a roofing project at a resort in Hancock, Massachusetts, where a roofing subcontractor’s employee suffered catastrophic injuries after falling from a roof while moving shingles. The property owner hired a general contractor, Skyway Roofing, Inc., who in turn subcontracted the roofing work to the worker’s employer, MBT Construction. The SJC determined that the worker had unclipped his safety harness while moving materials because the safety line being used was too short for the task at hand. While the subcontractor supplied the fall protection equipment, supervised its employees, and controlled the day-to-day roofing operations, the subcontract was silent regarding safety responsibilities. The general contractor did not direct or instruct the subcontractor’s employees on how to use the harnesses, safety lines, or other fall protection measures. The injured employee sued the general contractor, alleging negligence and negligent hiring based on the subcontractor’s history of OSHA fall protection violations.
The SJC held that a general contractor may be liable for a subcontractor employee’s injuries only if it retained and exercised control over the specific safety practice that led to the injury. General project oversight or broad contractual language requiring a safe worksite is not enough. Because the subcontractor controlled the roofing work, supplied the safety equipment, and directed its employees’ activities, the Court found the general contractor was not responsible for the employee’s injuries. The Court also rejected the employee’s negligent hiring claim, holding that Massachusetts law does not recognize a negligent hiring claim by a subcontractor’s employee against a general contractor when the injury arises from the subcontractor’s own work. The Court reasoned that allowing such claims would undermine the workers’ compensation system and expose subcontractors to indirect or duplicative liability.
The decision provides important guidance for everyone involved in Massachusetts construction projects. For general contractors, liability will often depend on whether they actually controlled the specific safety practice that caused the injury, making it critical to clearly assign safety responsibilities in subcontracts and ensure field practices align with those contractual allocations. Property owners and developers should recognize that hiring a general contractor does not automatically determine who bears responsibility following an accident; courts will focus on which party controlled the dangerous condition or safety practice at issue. Risk managers and insurers should evaluate retained-control exposure based not only on contract language, but also on how safety responsibilities are implemented and enforced on the jobsite. More broadly, the decision underscores the value of clear risk-transfer provisions and consistent documentation of safety responsibilities throughout the life of a project.
Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc., 498 Mass. 164, 283 N.E.3d 798 (2026).
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.