In an opinion issued Friday, May 7, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the issue of control over an independent contractor.
In JLB Builders, LLC v. Hernandez, No. 20-0368, 2021 WL 1822947 (Tex. 2021), the employee of a subcontractor for a high-rise construction project was injured on the job. The injured person filed claims of negligence against the general contractor, who had an independent contractor relationship with the plaintiff’s employer. The defendant/general contractor filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it did not owe a duty to plaintiff because it did not have actual or contractual control over the plaintiff. The trial court agreed and granted defendant’s motion. An intermediate court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas granted certiorari.
In reversing the court of appeals and upholding the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, the Court ruled that, based upon the facts in the case, the defendant did not have actual control over the plaintiff. In so concluding, the Court noted that in order to give rise to a duty, a contractor’s control “must extend to the timing and sequence of the particular independent contractor’s work,” and that “the general right to order work started and stopped and direct when and where the work is done does not give rise to a duty of care.” Further, the Court held that the defendant’s requirement that plaintiff wear a safety harness did not increase the risk or severity of injury, so that the requirement did not amount to control giving rise to a duty to the plaintiff.
The Court also ruled that the defendant did not have contractual control over the plaintiff. The contract delegated supervisory duties to the subcontractor and withheld from the defendant the authority to direct and control the “means, manner or method” of the work. The Court noted that the “general supervisory authority with respect to subcontractor scheduling” does not give rise to a duty of care by an independent contractor. As such, the Court determined that there was similarly no controverted issue of fact regarding the defendant’s contractual control over the plaintiff.
This ruling from the Texas Supreme Court indicates the continued existence of a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to establish a duty of care owed by independent contractor defendants. The opinion also demonstrates, however, that the relevant legal analysis is fact-intensive and dependent upon the unique circumstances of each case.