Article by Nuo (Norman) Jiang, Esq.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently vacated a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas jury verdict and $6.4 million award in favor of an injured employee of a contractor due to improper jury instructions issued at the underlying trial.

Covanta Holding Corp. (“Covanta”), a renewable energy and waste management company, contracted with Sirk Mechanical Services, Inc. (“Sirk”) for a multi-year goods and services agreement under which Sirk would perform its contracted duties at Covanta facilities. On December 15, 2017, Sirk was directed to dismantle tarping stations at a closed Covanta transfer facility in Philadelphia, which included dismantling sets of stairs and catwalks formerly used to install tarps over trucks hauling materials in and out of the Covanta facility.

On December 19, 2017, Plaintiff Justin D’Amico, a Sirk-employed welder with experience operating a forklift, was injured when a tarping station catwalk fell from a forklift and landed on him. The accident occurred because another Sirk employee, not qualified to operate a forklift, used a forklift at Plaintiff’s request, and lifted the catwalk without properly securing it on the forklift. Plaintiff was twenty-five years old at time of accident, in which he suffered hip and pelvis injuries together with significant pain, and confinement. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff lost ability to work as a welder.

A November 12, 2019 Complaint filed by Plaintiff against Covanta alleged that Covanta was liable for Plaintiff’s injuries for negligently failing to provide a safe job site, failing to appropriately supervise contractor Sirk, and for failing to require contractor Sirk to follow adequate safety procedures. The matter proceeded through discovery and was followed by a trial in September and October 2022. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, but found that Plaintiff was at least twenty-seven percent negligent, while Covanta was seventy-three percent negligent. After a denied post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) filed by Covanta, on February 7, 2023, the Trial Court entered Judgment against Covanta for $6.4 million dollars. Covanta appealed the entry of judgment against it.

On appeal, the Superior Court focused on whether Covanta was entitled to JNOV on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show the type of control over Sirk’s work that could support liability for injuries caused by an independent contractor, and whether Covanta was entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s instructions to the jury on the type of control over Sirk’s work that Plaintiff was required to prove.

The Superior Court ultimately found that Covanta was not entitled to JNOV, but that the Trial Court made an error by denying a requested jury instruction on liability for injuries caused by an independent contractor, which was necessary to prevent the charge as a whole from being inaccurate and misleading. In so ruling, the Superior Court reviewed the Trial Court’s jury instructions with a focus on the portion of the instruction directing jury to consider landowner liability if that landowner retains “control” over the manner in which work was done on its premises. The Superior Court then noted that the Trial Court denied Covanta’s request to instruct the jury that retaining some authority over safety and enforcing safety requirements is not by itself sufficient to impose landowner liability for injuries caused by an independent contractor.  The Superior Court continued to reason that this denial or omission of this limiting instruction was erroneous because absent this clarification, the inaccurate jury instructions mislead the jury as it instructed that any control over the manner, method, or operative details of any part of the work was sufficient to impose landowner liability. Thus, the Trial Court’s denial of Covanta’s clarification prejudiced Covanta by permitting the misleading jury instructions to stand.

For these reasons, the Superior Court vacated the Trial court’s judgment and ordered a new trial on the basis that the Trial Court erroneously instructed the jury on the central issue in the matter. The Superior Court’s decision with respect to this flawed jury instruction reaffirms the importance of pre-trial practice and the impact that one simple jury instruction can have on the outcome of a trial. The decision also underscores the well-settled nature of landowner liability in Pennsylvania and the degree of control required to be exercised in order for a landowner to remain liable for the injuries of a contractor.