Sometimes, using a subcontractor can protect you from liability. In South Alabama Brick Co., Inc. v. Carwie, No. 1130345, 2016 WL 1077265 (Ala. Mar. 18, 2016), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a $12.6 Million verdict entered against a company that used a roofing subcontractor to repair a leaking roof. In that case, South Alabama Brick Company’s (“SAB”) leaking roof contained 12 skylights. SAB hired Cooner Roofing to perform the repairs. Cooner Roofing hired Rocael Perez and his “crew” to do the work. In the course of performing repairs, a member of the “crew,” Benito Perez, fell through a skylight and suffered serious injury. His conservator sued both Cooner Roofing and SAB.
In reversing the judgment against SAB, the Supreme Court relied on two factors. First, the Court found that SAB had no duty to warn Benito Perez of the danger of skylights. In particular, the Court found that SAB’s contractor, Cooner Roofing, had knowledge equal or superior to that of SAB regarding the danger of skylights so that SAB possessed no additional duty to directly warn Cooner’s employees or subcontractors. Second, the Supreme Court found SAB had no duty to ensure that Cooner Roofing was a “qualified contractor.” In other words, the Court found that SAB had no duty to protect Benito Perez from the negligence of his own employer by not hiring that employer in the first place.