When a Subcontractor’s Employee Gets Hurt, Who’s Liable? The SJC Draws a Sharp Line on General Contractor Liability in Massachusetts in Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing.
Construction sites are layered with contractors, subcontractors, and workers who answer to different bosses. They all share the same jobsite. When someone gets hurt, figuring out who’s legally responsible isn’t always straightforward — and that’s exactly the kind of question at issue in a recent Massachusetts case. On August 17, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the scope of general contractor liability in Massachusetts in Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc. General contractors across the Commonwealth should take notice.
What happened.
In October 2021, Luis Contento Suquilanda was replacing shingles on a roof at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock, Massachusetts. He worked for MBT Construction Corp., a subcontractor hired by Skyway Roofing, Inc., the general contractor on the project. While moving materials on the roof, his safety line was too short to complete the task. He unclipped his harness, intending to reattach to another line. Before he could, he fell and suffered catastrophic injuries.
Suquilanda sued Skyway, not MBT. Why? MBT was his actual employer. Workers’ compensation law generally bars an employee from suing their own employer in tort. He’d already filed a workers’ comp claim through MBT’s insurer. So his only path to additional recovery ran through Skyway, the general contractor one step up the chain.
He advanced two theories, both testing the limits of general contractor liability under Massachusetts law. First, that Skyway retained enough control over the jobsite to be liable for ordinary negligence. Second, that Skyway had negligently hired MBT, given MBT’s history of OSHA fall-protection citations on other jobs. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Skyway on both. The SJC took the case up on its own initiative and affirmed. Let’s walk through why.
Theory one: Retained control and Massachusetts general contractor negligence standards.
Massachusetts law, going back to a case called Corsetti v. Stone Co. (1985), holds that a general contractor can be liable for a subcontractor’s injured worker. This applies if the general contractor “retains the right to control the work in any of its aspects, including the right to initiate and maintain safety measures.” That’s a meaningful standard. But it isn’t a low bar, and it’s worth understanding it.
Think of it this way: a homeowner hires a landscaping company and tells the crew, “keep the yard looking nice while you work.” That’s not the same as directing how the crew operates its mower or where it places its ladders. The former is a general expectation about the end result. The latter is how that result is reached.
Skyway’s involvement here looked a lot like that homeowner. It delivered shingles, a boom lift, and a dumpster — none of which contributed to the fall — and visited the site twice to check on progress and materials. MBT was never told how to install anchors, place safety lines, or train its workers. The subcontract required MBT to work under Skyway’s “general direction.” But a general contractual right to direct work isn’t the same as retaining control over safety practices. Neither is a single sentence in Skyway’s contract with Jiminy Peak requiring it to “maintain the premises in a safe, orderly and workmanlike manner.” That’s a general duty to keep a safe worksite — not evidence that Skyway controlled MBT’s fall-protection methods.
The permit and building code arguments didn’t move the needle either.
The plaintiff also pointed to the building permit. Skyway had listed itself as “general contractor” on the application. He combined that with a State Building Code provision requiring general contractors to control construction means and methods safely, arguing this created the necessary duty. We think the Court got this right in rejecting it: a duty of care has to exist before a statutory violation can support liability. The code can inform whether a duty was breached. Signing a permit application doesn’t, on its own, prove operational control over how the work got done.
Theory two: negligent hiring and Massachusetts general contractor negligence claims.
This is where the Court broke new ground. It’s the part we think general contractors will be talking about for a while. Suquilanda argued that Skyway should be liable simply for choosing MBT. The SJC disagreed. It drew a clear, previously unresolved line: when a subcontractor’s own employee is injured performing the subcontractor’s own work, and the general contractor didn’t retain or exercise control over the condition that caused the injury, Massachusetts law does not recognize an independent negligent hiring claim against the general contractor.
Worth noting: OSHA citations don’t create civil liability on their own. They’re a federal regulatory enforcement mechanism, not a private right of action. Here, that citation history mattered only as evidence of what Skyway allegedly knew about MBT’s safety record when it hired the subcontractor. Even so, the Court held it wasn’t enough to establish a duty running from Skyway to MBT’s own employee.
Why not? Negligent hiring claims typically protect people exposed to a contractor’s negligence because of the hiring decision — members of the public, patients, customers. Suquilanda’s exposure to MBT didn’t come from Skyway’s decision to hire MBT. It came from his own employment relationship with MBT, which hired him, directed his daily work, and supplied his safety equipment. Recognizing a duty here would also sit uneasily against the workers’ compensation system. That system already gave Suquilanda a no-fault remedy in exchange for giving up his common-law claims against his employer. And because MBT’s subcontract required it to indemnify Skyway, any recovery against Skyway would likely flow right back to MBT anyway. That would expose MBT to the same liability twice, undermining the entire workers’ comp bargain.
What this means for general contractors.
We read Suquilanda as reinforcing that the safest position for a general contractor is often the most hands-off one when it comes to a subcontractor’s means and methods. But that comes with its own tension. Your contracts, permits, and site visits still need careful drafting and documentation to avoid inadvertently creating retained control. This decision also gives general contractors real protection against negligent hiring claims brought by a subcontractor’s own workers, so long as the general contractor stays out of the operational weeds. That protection isn’t unlimited, though. It applies specifically where the general contractor didn’t control the injury-producing condition. The facts on your jobsite, your contracts, and your permit applications all matter.
We talked about the limits of duty in another article here — though different circumstances and under Connecticut law, that case also turned on how far a party’s legal responsibility extends once something (or someone) is out of their direct control.
Let’s Talk.
If you’re a general contractor evaluating how your subcontracts, safety protocols, or site oversight practices might affect your liability exposure, we can help you review your agreements and practices before an incident happens — not after.
Learn more about Tony and the Minchella Law team!
Explore our practice areas.
Contact us today.
