Kotecki v. Walsh Construction Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the plaintiff “offered no evidence or argument that he made a reasonable decision to deliberately encounter an obvious danger”
• finding no evidence of control by the general contractor where the plaintiff’s employer controlled the manner in which he completed his assignment, provided the supplies, and coordinated his assignments
• no duty to plaintiff established based on general contractor’s reservation in contract of general right to supervision, which did not refer to a right to direct the specific work of the independent contractor
• “Plaintiff points to no facts to show that Walsh and Home Depot retained an amount of supervision such that plaintiff, a painting subcontractor, was not free to complete the work in his own way.”
• distraction due to presence of multiple workers on the jobsite does not fall within the ambit of section 343A because the imposition of a duty to guard against such a “distraction” would completely ignore the reality of construction industry
• no duty to plaintiff established based on general contractor's reservation in contract of general right to supervision, which did not refer to a right to direct the specific work of the independent contractor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).