Cefaratti v. Mason Structural Steel Co., Inc. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

CEFARATTI ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MASON STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY, INC. ET
AL.; PANZICA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Cefaratti v. Mason Structural Steel Co., Inc. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Torts -- Negligence -- Independent contractor -- Determining whether general
contractor by virtue of its supervisory capacity over work site owes a duty
of care to employees of subcontractor.
(No. 97-1431 -- Submitted April 21, 1998 -- Decided June 17, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 70971.
__________________

Seaman & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Michael J. Skindell, for appellants.

Meyers, Hentemann & Rea Co., L.P.A., Henry A. Hentemann and J. Michael
Creagan, for appellee.
__________________

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded
to the trial court for consideration of Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co. (1998), 81
Ohio St.3d 628, 693 N.E.2d 233.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
__________________

COOK, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the judgment to reverse
this case on the basis of this court's decision in Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co.
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 628, 693 N.E.2d 233. Even under the law of Sopkovich, the
decision of the court of appeals in this case should be affirmed. The trial court
properly granted summary judgment because Cefaratti's evidence failed to show
that his fall from an unguarded second floor landing (a regularly encountered
hazard at construction sites) amounted to the retention and exercise of control over

a critical aspect of Cefaratti's working environment by Panzica Construction Co.
Unlike the Sopkovich case, here there was no evidence offered of Panzica actively
participating in readying the work area for Cefaratti. In Sopkovich, the court
appeared to depart from the teachings of Cafferkey v. Turner Constr. Co. (1986),
21 Ohio St.3d 110, 21 OBR 416, 488 N.E.2d 189, and its progeny based on Ohio
Edison's exclusive control of the factor in the work environment that caused the
injury; only Ohio Edison could de-energize the area where the independent
contractor's employee was painting. In the absence of a like factor to distinguish
this case from Bond v. Howard Corp. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 332, 650 N.E.2d
416, and Michaels v. Ford Motor Co. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 475, 650 N.E.2d
1352, we should affirm.

MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent and would
dismiss this case as having been improvidently allowed. The facts in this case are
very dissimilar to Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 628, 693
N.E.2d 233. In this case, the employee was well aware that a stairwell railing had
been removed to facilitate the pouring of concrete. The absence of the rail was
open and obvious. The subcontractor chose to move forward with work that day
instead of waiting for the concrete to be poured and the rail to be reinstalled. The
employee brought his own tools up to the landing. He testified that he must have
reached down or stumbled when reaching for his tools and fell off the landing.
There is no evidence that a railing would have prevented his fall.
Unlike
Sopkovich, there is no issue of direction or control by the owner. In
fact, Bond v. Howard Corp. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 332, 650 N.E.2d 416, and
Michaels v. Ford Motor Co. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 475, 650 N.E.2d 1352, are

2

directly on point. In Bond, the general contractor hired an independent
subcontractor who employed Bond. Bond was working at the construction site
when he fell through an unguarded opening on the second floor. Bond was aware
that the opening existed and that it was unguarded. The general contractor did not
supervise or participate in the actual construction of the wall. See Bond, 72 Ohio
St.3d at 332, 650 N.E.2d at 417.

We held that "[f]or purposes of establishing liability to the injured employee
of an independent subcontractor, `actively participated' means that the general
contractor directed the activity which resulted in the injury and/or gave or denied
permission for the critical acts that led to the employee's injury, rather than merely
exercising a general supervisory role over the project. (Cafferkey v. Turner Constr.
Co. [1986], 21 Ohio St.3d 110, 21 OBR 416, 488 N.E.2d 189, construed and
applied.)" Bond at syllabus. Further, we held that retention of the authority to
monitor and coordinate activities does not constitute "active participation." Id. at
336-337, 650 N.E.2d at 420.
Similarly,
in
Michaels v. Ford Motor Co., an employee of a subcontractor
on a construction site died after he sustained injuries from falling through a hole
that the general contractor's employees had cut in the second floor. We
considered whether an owner of a construction site, by virtue of directing a
general contractor to perform a task required by contract specifications, owes a
duty of care under R.C. 4101.11 and 4101.12 to an employee of a subcontractor
who is subsequently injured as a result of the general contractor's failure to keep
the area where it performed the task in a safe condition. Michaels at 477, 650
N.E.2d at 1354.

We determined that the owner of the construction site, Ford, neither directed
the general contractor as to the manner in which he should safeguard the floor

3

opening nor gave or denied permission with regard to the way in which the hole
was covered. Further, Ford retained no custody or control over the area where the
general contractor cut the hole through which the employee subsequently fell. As
a matter of law, we found that Ford owed no duty of care to the employee under
the frequenter statutes. Id. at 479-480, 650 N.E.2d at 1355-1356.

Construction work is inherently fraught with danger. Subcontractors come
and go, creating unavoidable hazards as part of their work. Bond and Michaels
recognize this perilous environment. There is no evidence of direction, control, or
active participation in this case with regard to the site or the employee. Sopkovich
adds nothing to this case for the trial court to consider. Therefore, I would dismiss
this case as having been improvidently allowed or affirm the judgment of the court
of appeals.

MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

4