Construction site injury

On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Loweke, the court vacated the trial court's summary dismissal of plaintiff-Frommert's negligence action and remanded. Defendant-Kasco was the general contractor on an urban loft development project. Frommert worked as a laborer for a carpentry subcontractor employed by Kasco. Defendant-Teera served as Kasco's masonry subcontractor. Frommert was injured when he stepped off an aerial lift truck onto scaffolding erected by Teera, in order to retrieve a tile of Styrofoam insulation that had blown away during the course of his work. Teera employees had recently moved the scaffolding from a different location on the perimeter of the building, and had yet to completely stabilize the structure. Frommert stepped onto an unsecured plank, which gave way, and because he was not wearing a safety tether, he fell 20 feet to the ground below. Frommert sued Teera alleging that it acted in a negligent manner by failing to completely stabilize and secure the scaffolding, leaving it in an unsafe condition on the worksite. "While Teera had a contractual obligation to Kasco to maintain proper scaffolding, Frommert's claim was not based on that contractual obligation. Rather, Frommert's claim was based on the common law duty to use reasonable care to avoid endangering other workers or anyone else lawfully on the worksite." "Teera had a preexisting duty to act with reasonable care to avoid harm regardless of its subcontract with Kasco." In light of the Supreme Court's directive following Loweke, the court adopted Judge Gleicher's analysis in Frommert I (concluding that there was a genuine issue of material fact that Teera negligently constructed a scaffold and invited Frommert to use it, and under the circumstances, Teera breached a common-law duty of care). Thus, the court held that the trial court incorrectly concluded that summary disposition was proper under Fultz.