SJC Affirms No Duty Where General Contractor Retained No Safety Control: Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing (SJC-13878, August 17, 2026)

Luis Contento Suquilanda fell from a roof at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in October 2021 and suffered catastrophic injuries. He was employed by MBT Construction Corp., a subcontractor that Skyway Roofing, Inc. had hired to replace shingles. Suquilanda sued Skyway for negligence and negligent hiring. On August 17, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed summary judgment for Skyway, holding the general contractor owed no duty because it had not retained control over the safety aspects of the work and had not hired the plaintiff.

The Facts

Skyway, a New York roofing company, contracted with Jiminy Peak in September 2021 to replace shingles on a roof in Hancock. Skyway obtained a building permit listing itself as the general contractor and Christopher Burroughs as the person responsible for construction. Skyway then subcontracted the work to MBT. The subcontract required MBT to perform the work under Skyway’s general direction but left the means and methods of doing so to MBT. The contract said nothing about safety and did not specify who would provide equipment, oversight, or training.

Skyway and MBT had worked together since 2020 on seventy-two roofing jobs. On each project, including Jiminy Peak, MBT supplied its own fall protection equipment. Neither company trained MBT’s workers in fall protection. MBT had been cited by OSHA for fall protection violations on other jobs for other companies.

MBT crews installed anchors and fifty-foot safety lines on the Jiminy Peak roof. MBT’s owner told them to always use fall protection equipment. On the day of the accident, Suquilanda was moving shingles when his safety line proved too short. He unclipped his harness intending to connect to another line. Before he could reattach, he slipped and fell from the roof, suffering life-threatening injuries. He was airlifted to a New York hospital and later filed a workers’ compensation claim through MBT’s insurer.

Suquilanda sued Skyway in Superior Court, alleging common-law negligence and negligent hiring. The trial judge granted summary judgment for Skyway, concluding the defendant owed no duty because it did not retain control over any aspect of MBT’s work and because the plaintiff, as the subcontractor’s employee, could not maintain a negligent hiring claim.

Retained Control Under Corsetti

The court applied the standard from Corsetti v. Stone Co., 396 Mass. 1, 10 (1985), which holds a general contractor liable for injuries only if it retains the right to control the work, including the right to initiate and maintain safety measures, and fails to exercise that control with reasonable care. The retained-control question is ordinarily a jury question, but summary judgment is proper when the record cannot support a finding of retained control as a matter of law.

The trial judge found Skyway exercised no meaningful control over MBT’s work or its safety practices. Skyway’s involvement was limited to delivering materials and visiting the site twice to show MBT which roof to replace, check whether additional materials were needed, and ensure MBT did not damage the property. The court found these actions insufficient.

Suquilanda pointed to language in the contract between Skyway and Jiminy Peak requiring Skyway to “[m]aintain the premises in a safe, orderly and workmanlike manner.” The court rejected this argument, holding that language at most established a general duty to provide a reasonably safe worksite. It did not show that MBT lacked the freedom to work in its own way with respect to the specific actions that caused the injury.

The court distinguished cases finding retained control, such as Corsetti itself, where the general contract required the contractor to “initiate, maintain, and supervise all safety precautions and programs” and the site supervisor exercised authority to direct subcontractors to remedy violations and stop work. Here, nothing in the record showed Skyway retained or exercised control over the placement or adequacy of safety lines, the use of harnesses, the training of MBT workers, or the manner in which MBT performed the roofing work.

Suquilanda also argued the State building code supplied the necessary control. The code requires a general contractor to “[e]xecut[e] and control . . . all means and methods of construction in a safe . . . manner.” The court held a duty of care must already exist before a plaintiff can use a statutory violation to support a tort claim. The code may bear on breach where a duty exists, but it cannot manufacture one. Signing the building permit as the general contractor did not establish that Skyway took operational control over MBT’s safety measures or work practices.

No Duty for Negligent Hiring

The court next addressed whether Skyway owed an independent negligent hiring duty. The plaintiff’s theory was that Skyway chose MBT knowing, or having reason to know, that MBT had a record of failing to maintain safe worksites. The summary judgment record contained evidence of Skyway’s awareness that MBT had been cited by OSHA for fall protection violations on prior jobs.

The SJC held that where the plaintiff is the subcontractor’s own employee, the general contractor neither retained nor exercised control over the injury-producing condition, and the injury arises from the subcontractor’s performance of its own work, Massachusetts law does not recognize an independent negligent hiring claim against the general contractor. This limitation follows from ordinary duty principles.

The court emphasized that negligent hiring cases ordinarily involve injuries to members of the public, patients, customers, or others exposed to the tortfeasor because of the defendant’s hiring decision. This case was different. Suquilanda’s exposure to MBT did not flow from Skyway’s hiring decision. MBT hired the plaintiff, directed his day-to-day work, supplied the fall protection equipment, and controlled how that equipment was used. To treat Skyway’s selection of MBT as the legal source of a duty to MBT’s own employees would collapse the line between a duty to protect persons foreseeably exposed to a contractor’s negligence and a duty to protect the contractor’s own employees from risks inherent in the work itself.

The court also noted that Suquilanda was not left without a remedy. He filed a workers’ compensation claim through MBT’s insurer. Workers’ compensation laws provide compensation for workplace injuries without requiring proof of fault, but they also require employees to give up their common-law rights to recover against their employer.

Recognizing a duty here, the court said, would put the common law in tension with the exclusivity of workers’ compensation. The subcontract contained an indemnification provision requiring MBT to compensate Skyway for losses arising from MBT’s work. Any recovery against Skyway for negligent hiring would therefore run back to MBT, exposing MBT to liability twice and circumventing the workers’ compensation scheme. To recognize a negligent hiring duty on these facts would unsettle the Legislature’s balance of interests and rework the allocation of responsibility among general contractors, subcontractors, employees, workers’ compensation insurers, and liability insurers.

Why This Matters

The decision clarifies that general contractors cannot be held liable to a subcontractor’s employees absent actual, not merely contractual, retention of control over the safety condition that caused the injury. Boilerplate language requiring safe work conditions or listing a party as general contractor on a building permit does not, standing alone, establish the requisite control.

The ruling also forecloses an independent negligent hiring theory in this context, reinforcing the primacy of the workers’ compensation system where the plaintiff’s direct employer is the subcontractor. The court recognized the risk that recognizing such a duty would allow double recovery against the subcontractor (once through indemnification of the general contractor, once through workers’ compensation) and interfere with the legislative compromise embedded in workers’ compensation law.

The case leaves open the question of whether Restatement (Second) of Torts section 411, which addresses liability for hiring an incompetent contractor, applies in Massachusetts and whether its reference to “third persons” categorically excludes employees of the hired contractor. The court resolved only the narrower common-law duty question presented by these facts.

Read the full opinion: Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc (SJC-13878, August 17, 2026).