Can general contractors face premises liability for workplace injuries? Gonzalez v. Russell Sorensen Construction Explained

In Gonzalez v. Russell Sorensen Construction, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether general contractors can face premises liability for injuries to subcontractors’ employees, establishing important precedent for construction liability cases.

Background and Facts

Russell Sorensen Construction served as general contractor for a residential development project in Midvale, Utah. The company hired John Clayton Construction to install siding, soffit, and fascia. While Clayton’s employee Jose Gonzalez was working on scaffolding, aluminum J-molding he was holding contacted high-voltage power lines located within ten feet of the building’s roof and thirty-seven inches from the scaffolding. Gonzalez fell eighteen feet and sustained serious injuries. He sued multiple parties, including Sorensen, alleging the general contractor failed to warn of the dangerous power lines, failed to ensure adequate safety measures, and allowed construction too close to the electrical lines.

Key Legal Issues

Sorensen moved for summary judgment, arguing it could only be liable under the retained control doctrine if it had exercised direct control over the injury-causing work aspect. The general contractor also contended that Gonzalez’s complaint failed to adequately plead a premises liability claim because it did not allege that Sorensen owned or possessed the property. The central question was whether general contractors owe duties analogous to landowners when they create dangerous conditions at job sites.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment. The court distinguished between vicarious liability claims under the retained control doctrine and direct negligence claims. Importantly, the court held that Restatement (Second) of Torts section 384 correctly states Utah law. This section provides that one who creates artificial conditions on land “is subject to the same liability, and enjoys the same freedom from liability, as though he were the possessor of the land” for physical harm caused while the work remains in their charge. The court found this principle logically followed from the Utah Supreme Court’s adoption of section 385 in Tallman v. City of Hurricane.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly expands potential liability for general contractors in Utah. Contractors can now face direct liability for creating dangerous conditions at job sites, even without retaining control over subcontractors’ work methods. The ruling clarifies that notice pleading requirements are satisfied when complaints adequately describe the general nature of negligence claims, even if specific legal theories aren’t explicitly labeled. For practitioners, this case demonstrates the importance of evaluating both retained control and premises liability theories when handling construction injury cases.