In the recent unreported decision of Andrews v. Jerud, Jeffrey Andrews filed suit for injuries he sustained while delivering windows to a construction site on which David Jerud was building a new home.  Although Jerud, a periodontist, had no training in construction, he ordered and purchased the construction materials and was onsite almost daily to coordinate with the contractors. Jerud had ordered the windows from Andrew’s employer, Universal Supply Company.  Andrews was injured while inside Universal’s trailer when a window was dropped onto the back of his legs during the unloading process.

The trial court granted Jerud summary judgment finding that he was not acting as the general contractor on the date of the accident and, therefore, did not have a duty to direct and control the methods of the subcontractors.  Andrews appealed, arguing that Jerud retained control over the subcontractors on site and, therefore, qualified as a general contractor. Andrews pointed out that Jerud had previously supervised the construction of a house on the adjacent lot; had formed his own construction company. And had also been involved in rehabbing several other properties without hiring a general contractor.

The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding that Jerud never retained control over the manner and means of the construction work.  The Court further found that Andrews’ liability expert’s report was not enough to preclude summary judgment.  Although the expert had opined that Jerud owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, the court found that the issues of whether a defendant owes a legal duty to another and the scope of that duty, are generally questions of law for the court.

Thanks to Heather Aquino for her contribution to this post. For more information, please contact Nicole Y. Brown at .