holding corporation that contracted with independent contractor not liable to subcontractor's employee; plaintiff was unable to establish that peculiar risk or special danger caused injury
How later courts described this case
- holding corporation that contracted with independent contractor not liable to subcontractor's employee; plaintiff was unable to establish that peculiar risk or special danger caused injury
- stating, in dicta, that under the Heath facts, employer of independent contractor would be liable for peculiar risk posed by digging of sewer trench
- risk of falling from 14 foot scaffold during construction work is ordinary risk not within sections 416/427
- “All construction work involves some risk of harm; only where the work is done under unusually dangerous circumstances does it involve a ‘special danger’ or ‘peculiar risk.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I respectfully disagree with what appears to be an artificial distinction among a variety of activities which may or may not be classified as constituting a special danger or peculiar risk. Nonetheless, I would not reach this issue for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Colloi v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 332 Pa.Super. 284 , 481 A.2d 616 (1984). I remain convinced that §§ 416 and 427 of Restatement (Second) of Torts were intended to provide a basis of *57 recovery by third parties, not employees of independent contractors or subcontractors.