Court: Workers injured at sloppy construction sites have right to sue

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today a worker injured at a Childrens Hospital construction project in 2003 has the right to sue the contractor who hired him because the site was a complete and dangerous mess.

A lower court had thrown out William Docos's lawsuit against John Moriarty and Associates on the grounds the leaning sheetrock that injured him was "an open and obvious" danger, so his injuries were his own fault.

But the appeals court reinstated his lawsuit, saying there's dangerous and then there's dangerous:

The project appears to have had significant, persistent problems preventing and remedying the accumulation of dangerous construction debris. Moriarty's project superintendent, Richard Lennon, admitted that he had observed hazardous debris conditions several times, in violation of both Moriarty's legal obligations as set forth in applicable Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations and Moriarty's own health and safety program. He further admitted that he failed to report these conditions properly under the procedures identified in the Moriarty health and safety program. The record contains evidence that the project's debris problem impeded construction progress and that several workers, including Docos, complained about the hazards posed by debris.

Docos, assigned to do some work on walls at the site, says his right knee was permanently injured when some sheetrock he was trying to move away from a wall tumbled on him. Docos says he couldn't get out of the way because of all the construction debris on the floor and a five-foot-high toolbox.

In their decision, the appeals court cited last year's Supreme Judicial Court decision on snow removal, which upended more than 100 years' of legal precedent and held that property owners could now be sued for "natural" snow and ice accumulations:

The owner or person in control of property "is not relieved from remedying an open and obvious danger when it 'can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to [a lawful visitor] notwithstanding its known or obvious danger.' ... Specifically, where there is "reason to expect that the [lawful visitor] will proceed to encounter the known or obvious danger because to a reasonable man in his position the advantages of doing so would outweigh the apparent risk," such a duty to remedy arises.

• Complete ruling