An injured worker who collects workers’ compensation in Rhode Island cannot sue his employer in Massachusetts, according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Both states bar any other recovery once an injured worker has received a payment.
In the same ruling, the court found that under Massachusetts law a homeowner who hires a firm for the purpose of remedying an obvious hazardous condition on her property does not owe the same duty of care to the contractor as she might to another person lawfully on her property.
In 2016, Ryan Ward suffered serious injuries to both his legs when the wall of a dilapidated and partially collapsed garage fell on him. The standalone garage was on a residential property located in Fall River, Massachusetts owned by Catherine Schnurr. Schnurr hired Julio Santana’s Rhode Island firm, Go Green Services, LLC, to demolish and remove the garage. Ward worked for Go Green.
Before he was injured, Ward called his boss, Santana, and explained that he did not believe he could take down the structure safely in its then-present condition, and that additional equipment would be needed. Santana told the plaintiff that the job needed to be done, and said that he would try to get to the location as soon as he could.
Ward walked around the garage and reached for a protruding piece of the structure that he believed he could move freely. He pushed it back toward the inside of the garage. The garage then collapsed on top of him, pinning his legs underneath. He sustained bilateral leg fractures, which required surgery.
Ward, a Rhode Island resident, applied for workers’ compensation benefits with the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court. Go Green, through its insurer, at first denied liability, claiming that Ward was an independent contractor and thus not entitled to workers’ compensation. A workers’ compensation judge agreed and denied his claim. Ward then sought a trial but before the case went to trial the parties settled for a lump-sum payment of $19,000. Ward signed a statement releasing Go Green and the insurer. The release did not expressly cover Santana, or any of the officers or employees of Go Green.
After seeking workers’ compensation benefits from Go Green in Rhode Island, Ward brought a negligence action in the Superior Court in Massachusetts against Santana individually and against Schnurr, the Massachusetts property owner.
In his defense, Go Green’s Santana argued that Rhode Island and Massachusetts workers’ compensation laws, as well as the settlement release that the plaintiff signed, barred Ward’s tort claim, and that, in any event, Santana could not be held liable for the Ward’s injuries because he did not owe any duty to him.
Schnurr similarly contended that she had not owed any duty to the plaintiff, especially where the hazardous condition that the plaintiff was tasked with remedying was open and obvious and Go Green had been hired to remove it.
A Superior Court judge dismissed the claims against both Santana and Schnurr on summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court has now affirmed the dismissals.
The state’s high court said that while it is clear that the tort claims fall under Massachusetts law — they involve the condition of a Massachusetts property, and the injury occurred in Massachusetts – the case requires clarification as to the effect of the Rhode Island workers’ compensation settlement under Massachusetts law.
The court noted that it is a basic precept of workers’ compensation schemes that an employee’s remedy against an employer for injuries suffered on the job is generally limited to the remedy available under workers’ compensation law.
Both states’ laws bar any other recovery once an injured worker has received a payment. Thus by pursuing a workers’ compensation claim and accepting settlement funds in Rhode Island, Ward forfeited any additional claim against his employer, Go Green.
The court said the result is not different because Ward sued Santana rather than Go Green.
In short, by accepting the settlement, the plaintiff released not only Go Green but also Santana, as a matter of Rhode Island statutory and decisional law.
The court said that the plaintiff’s release of Santana under Rhode Island law also operates to bar a tort suit under Massachusetts law that has similar exclusivity rules. “The purpose of the exclusivity provision is, in part, to preclude exactly the type of tort litigation the plaintiff seeks to pursue here,” the court stated.
Claim Against Homeowners
As for the negligence claim against the homeowner, the lower court granted summary judgment for Schnurr on the ground that under the circumstances she owed no duty of care to the Ward. Ordinarily, a landowner does owe a duty of care to those lawfully on his or her property. In this case, however, Schnurr claims that her situation fell into a “narrow exception” to that rule where the person injured was lawfully on the premises for the very purpose of remedying the hazardous condition that caused the harm.
In affirming that reasoning, the Supreme Court cited the “commonsense recognition that a landowner who has a hazardous condition on his or her property may need to invite onto the property another person or persons to remedy that condition. The law, of course, wishes to encourage behavior that remedies hazardous conditions. ”
Also, the person engaged to remedy a hazardous condition differs markedly from an ordinary invitee. This person is aware of the danger, and thus there should be no need for warning, and this person will have held him or herself out as capable of remedying the condition. “Under those circumstances, it is reasonable for the law to reallocate the risk of harm from the property owner to the person who has sought to take on, and to alleviate, the hazard,” the court concluded.
The court added that there is no evidence to indicate that Schnurr either did or should have anticipated the harm that befell the plaintiff. In retaining Go Green, she was appropriately seeking to remedy that risk. Both Go Green and the plaintiff were also aware of the risk and presented themselves as competent to safely remediate it, Thus, Schnurr owed no duty to the plaintiff.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
US Home Insurance Still Priced Too Low for Climate Risk, Says Swiss Re Chair 
US Roof Maintenance Lags: Hanover 
Three Charged With Helping Agents Cheat on Florida Insurance License Exams 
‘Great Resignation’ Enters Third Year as Workers Embrace AI, Upskilling, PwC Says 
