Journal of American Law

SPRING 2015

The Journal of American Law is a peer-reviewed journal and the only one of its kind in the country. The Journal is a law review focused on important legal issues ranging from complex litigation to Supreme Court rulings.

Issue link: http://journaloflaw.epubxp.com/i/477043

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 42 of 47

Spring 2015 // Journal of American Law 43 Te key decision is Ward v. Monighan & Associates Inc., et al., 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1202 (May 5, 2005). In Ward, the Connecticut Superior Court afrmed the trial court's denial of the architect's motion for summary judgment in which the ar- chitect claimed immunity to the plaintif 's injuries. Although design professionals generally are immune from claims arising from injuries at a construction site (if the injured worker has access to workers' compensation benefts from his or her di- rect employer), a material question existed regarding whether the injury occurred at a "construction site" (i.e. the worker was injured four months afer construction was completed). 6 Florida—Fla. Stat. § 440.09(6): Except as provided in this chapter, a construction design professional who is retained to perform pro- fessional services on a construction project, or an employee of a construction design professional in the performance of professional services on the site of the construction project, is not liable for any inju- ries resulting from the employer's failure to comply with safety standards on the construction project for which compensation is recoverable under this chap- ter, unless responsibility for safety practices is specif- ically assumed by contracts. Te immunity provided by this subsection to a construction design profes- sional does not apply to the negligent preparation of design plans or specifcations. In Rode, et al. v. Malcolm, et al., 687 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1997), the Florida Court of Appeals reversed a trial court that denied summary judgment to the engineering company at issue. Ap- plying Florida's workers' compensation law, the court award- ed summary judgment to the engineering frm by granting it immunity to the plaintif 's tort claims. 7 Te court held that because there was no evidence that the engineering frm spe- cifcally assumed responsibility for safety standards at the construction site, the engineering frm was immune under the statute for all injuries at the construction project where the injury occurred. 8 Georgia—O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a): Te rights and the remedies granted to an employ- ee by this chapter shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal represen- tative, parents, dependents, or next of kin, at com- 6 Ward v. Monighan & Associates Inc., et al., 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1202 at **5-6 (May 5, 2005). See also, Giannotti v. Premier Real Estate, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 550 (granting summary judgment, fnding that so long as the defendant was practicing architecture within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-288(3), the defendant was immune under § 33-293(c)). 7 Rode, et al. v. Malcolm, et al., 687 So.2d 295, 296 (Fla. 1997). 8 Id.; see also, Estate of Reyes v. Brinckerhof Construction Services Inc., 784 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2001); Williams, Hatfeld & Stoner Inc., and Rode v. Malcolm, et al., 687 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1997). mon law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service, or death; provided, however, that no employee shall be deprived of any right to bring an action against any third-party tortfeasor, oth- er than an employee of the same employer or any person who, pursuant to a contract or agreement with an employer, provides workers' compensation benefts to an injured employee, notwithstanding the fact that no common-law master-servant rela- tionship or contract of employment exists between the injured employee and the person providing the benefts, and other than a construction design professional who is retained to perform profession- al services on or in conjunction with a construc- tion project on which the employee was working when injured, or any employee of a construction design professional who is assisting in the perfor- mance of professional services on the construction site on which the employee was working when in- jured, unless the construction design professional specifcally assumes by written contract the safety practices for the project. Te immunity provided by this subsection to a construction design profes- sional shall not apply to the negligent preparation of design plans and specifcations, nor shall it apply to the tortious activities of the construction design professional or the employees of the construction design professional while on the construction site where the employee was injured and where those activities are the proximate cause of the injury to the employee or to any professional surveys spe- cifcally set forth in the contract or any intentional misconduct committed by the construction design professional or his employees. 9 Hawaii —HRS § 386-8.5(b): No construction design professional who is retained to perform professional services on a construction project or any employee of a construction design professional who is assisting or representing the construction design professional in the performance of professional services on the site of the construc- tion project shall be liable for any injury on the construction project resulting from the employer's failure to comply with safety standards on the con- struction project for which compensation is recov- erable under this chapter unless the responsibility for the compliance of safety practices is specifcally assumed by contract or by other conduct of the con- struction design professional or any employee of the 9 See also Cowart v. Crown Am. Props., 572 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. 2002) (holding that a construction design professional engaged in licensed work as an architect, professional engineer, landscape architect, geologist, or land surveyor is immune under § 34-9- 11(b)).

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Journal of American Law - SPRING 2015