Hancock v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.
Docket Number | 57, Sept. Term, 2021 |
Decision Date | 15 August 2022 |
Citation | 480 Md. 588,281 A.3d 186 |
Parties | Andrea Jo HANCOCK, et al. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Todd W. Hesel (Andrew G. Slutkin and Ethan S. Nochumowitz, Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioners
Argued by Brett A. Buckwalter (Craig D. Roswell, Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, Baltimore, MD), and Argued by Louis C. Long (Charles B. Peoples, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP, Washington, DC), on briefs, for Respondents
Amicus Curiae Maryland Association for Justice, Inc.: Emily Malarkey, Esquire, Bekman, Marder, Hopper, Malarkey & Perlin L.L.C., 1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21208, Charles Michaels, Esquire, C. William Michaels Law Offices, 1579 Dellsway Road, Baltimore, MD 21286
Amicus Curiae Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc.: Gardner M. Duvall, Esquire, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P., Seven Saint Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21202
Argued before: Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Eaves, Irma S. Raker (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This appeal arises from the tragic death of 20-year-old Kyle Hancock, who was buried alive while working at an excavation site. At the time, Mr. Hancock was a laborer employed by R.F. Warder, Inc. ("Warder"), an independent contractor hired by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore ("Baltimore City" or the "City") to perform the excavation work. Also on site at the time was Keith Sutton, the sole member and employee of Sutton Building Solutions, LLC ("SBS"; collectively with Mr. Sutton, "Sutton"). SBS was a subcontractor to Warder.
Mr. Hancock's mother and the personal representatives of his late father's estate (collectively, the "Hancocks")1 filed a survivorship and wrongful death action in which they sought damages arising from Mr. Hancock's death. According to the complaint, Warder violated numerous laws, regulations, and industry safety standards in performing the excavation work and, as a result, the excavation caved in and killed Mr. Hancock. However, barred by Maryland's workers’ compensation laws from bringing negligence claims against Warder, the Hancocks brought their claims against only Baltimore City and Sutton. The Hancocks alleged that Baltimore City was liable because it failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring Warder, and that Sutton was liable because Mr. Sutton recognized the dangerous condition of the excavation site but failed to warn Mr. Hancock of the danger.
The circuit court granted the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Both courts concluded that although the City had a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring Warder to perform the excavation work, that duty did not extend to Warder's own employees who were engaged in that work. The courts also determined that absent any allegation that Sutton had created the dangerous worksite condition or exercised control over it, Sutton did not have a legally enforceable duty to warn Mr. Hancock of the hazard.
We will affirm the well-written and well-reasoned decision of the Court of Special Appeals on both issues and hold that under the common law of Maryland: (1) one who hires an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of that contractor for injuries caused by the contractor's negligence in performing the work for which it was hired; and (2) the duty of a contractor or subcontractor on a construction job to exercise due care to provide for the protection and safety of the employees of other contractors or subcontractors is owed with respect to conditions that the contractor or subcontractor creates or over which it exercises control.
We adopt the Court of Special Appeals’ concise statement of facts concerning the underlying incident, which was drawn from the complaint:2
In February 2020, the Hancocks filed a four-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the City and Sutton. Counts I through III were survivor actions against, respectively, the City, Mr. Sutton, and SBS. Count IV was a wrongful death action against all three defendants. The Court of Special Appeals summarized the claims as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peters-Humes v. Lafayette Fed. Credit Union
...the truth of all relevant and material facts that are well pleaded and all inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those pleadings." Id. Wheeling v. Selene Fin. LP, 473 Md. 356, 374 (2021)). "Motions to dismiss are generally granted in cases where 'there [is] no justiciable controvers......