Distinguishing Stute, Division I Awards Summary Judgment to GC in Ladder Accident Case
The two cases seemed similar enough. In the venerable Stute case decided in 1990, the employee of a subcontractor slipped while installing gutters on a condo project and fell off the roof. The Supreme Court held he could bring a direct action against the project's GC based on its nondelegable duty to comply with WISHA safety rules such as scaffolding regulations.
And here a subcontractor employee was also installing gutters on a home project when injured in a fall. The difference, according to Division I in dismissing the suit, was that this plaintiff had zero evidence of causation between the GC's negligence and his injury:
Stute is distinguishable because the cause of the accident in that case was known. Stute slipped. The only issue was whether the general contractor owed the employee of a subcontractor a duty to comply with specific regulations promulgated under WISHA. The court held that the general contractor owed Stute such a duty. Stute did not hold that a general contractor is liable for injuries to the employee of a subcontractor regardless whether the general contractor's failure to comply with safety regulations caused the accident. Without evidence to explain how his accident occurred, Little could not establish proximate cause and could not withstand summary judgment.