Contractors and Architectural Firms Beware

In a recent en banc decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that a contractor could bear responsibility for injuries that third-parties sustain as a result of a hazard that the contractor created and left behind on the job site – even if the property owner knew of the hazard and failed to act. Brown v. City of Oil City et al., No. 6 WAP 2022, 2023 WL 3471043, at *16 (Pa. May 16, 2023).

In 1904, the Oil City Library opened its doors to the public and quickly became a staple in the heart of Oil City. After years of service, the condition of the concrete stairs leading to the entrance of the library fell into a state of disrepair due to weathering and aging. As a result, Oil City retained an architectural firm in 2011 to develop plans for the reconstruction of the stairs, as well as to oversee the implementation of its design plans. Oil City also retained a concrete contractor to perform the reconstruction work, which involved the removal of the failing stairs and masonry work to construct new concrete stairs.

At the end of 2011, the contractor completed its work. In early 2012, Oil City began to receive reports about imperfections in the concrete surface. Oil City, however, did not inform the concrete contractor of those defects until September of 2013. Between February of 2012 and November of 2015, the condition of the stairs rapidly deteriorated, but neither Oil City nor the contractor took action to repair the stairs or otherwise warn the public.

In 2015, tragedy struck Appellee, David Brown’s family as he and his wife, Kathryn Brown, exited the Oil City Library. While walking down the concrete stairs, Mrs. Brown tripped on one of the deteriorated sections, causing her to fall, strike her head, and sustain a traumatic head injury. Mrs. Brown’s injuries claimed her life just days after the incident, causing Mr. Brown to initiate a wrongful death action. In doing so, Mr. Brown asserted negligence claims against the owners of the property, Oil City, as well as the concrete contractor and architectural firm responsible for the reconstruction of the steps.

After completion of discovery, the architectural firm and concrete contractor moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, prompting Mr. Brown to file an appeal. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court overturned the trial court’s entry of judgment, causing the architectural firm and concrete contractor to petition the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for allowance of appeal. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the architectural firm’s and concrete contractor’s request in order to consider “[w]hether an out-of-possession contractor can . . . be subject to liability under Section 385 of the Restatement of Torts for injuries to third-parties where the dangerous condition of the structure erected by the contractor is well-known to the possessor of land.”

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in a 4-1 decision, ruled that a contractor may bear responsibility for injuries that a third-party sustained as a result of an obvious hazard that the contractor created and left behind on the job site – even if the property owner failed to act or otherwise warn the public. Quoting its earlier decision in Prost v. Caldwell Store, Inc., the Oil City Court noted that:

Where a builder creates a hazard which, without the need of a prophetic telescope, proclaims potential injury to the public, he may not plead immunity from liability for resulting damage on the basis that his responsibility ceased with the insertion of the last bolt and the driving of the final nail.

Expanding upon that precedent, the Oil City Court reasoned that, for purposes of establishing liability, it makes no difference whether a defective condition is obvious or hidden. As such, the Oil City Court explained that a contractor may not escape liability merely because a defective condition is obvious; not hidden. The Oil City Court recognized that to hold otherwise would disincentivize contractors to remediate obvious, dangerous conditions. Therefore, the Oil City Court concluded that where a contractor creates a dangerous condition – whether readily discoverable or not – they may bear responsibility for injuries that a third-party sustains as a result of that condition. The Supreme Court accordingly remanded this matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision, exposing the architectural firm and contractor to future liability.

The Oil City Court’s decision is remarkable because it overturns Superior Court precedent that limited a contractor’s exposure to liability to situations where third-parties sustained injuries as a result of hidden, dangerous conditions that were unlikely to be discovered. In abrogating Longwell v. Giordano, the Oil City Court put contractors operating within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on notice that if they create a dangerous condition, they may bear responsibility for injuries that a third-party sustained as a result therefrom – irrespective of whether the dangerous condition is obvious or hidden. Accordingly, contractors must take heed of the Oil City Court’s decision, necessitating that contractors take timely, proportionate action to remediate obvious defective conditions before someone gets hurt.

Construction projects have evolved into dynamic, highly complex organisms, requiring thorough planning, careful bargaining, and diligent monitoring. Zarwin Baum routinely works hand and hand with property owners, developers, architectural and engineering firms, contractors, and subcontractors to navigate the intricacies of modern construction projects. Comprised of individuals with years of construction litigation experience and/or backgrounds in construction, our team is uniquely positioned to identify areas of concern and create pragmatic, business-driven solutions to advance the interests of our clients.