Background
Cody Hatt, an employee of demolition contractor North American Dismantling, was dismantling a catwalk attached to a smokestack at Pennsylvania’s long-idled Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station when the catwalk collapsed. Hatt fell approximately forty feet onto another catwalk and later died from his injuries. His mother, Lisa DeBar, brought wrongful-death and survival claims against FirstEnergy entities involved with the plant and Allegheny Energy Supply, its owner.
DeBar alleged that FirstEnergy Service retained actual control over the demolition through project personnel, specifications, safety requirements, audits, monitoring, and directions to the contractor. She also alleged that Allegheny Energy Supply was liable as the landowner. The district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and DeBar elected to stand on her complaint rather than amend it.
The Court’s Holding
In a divided decision, the Third Circuit affirmed. Applying Pennsylvania law, the majority held that FirstEnergy Service owed no duty under the retained-control exception to the general rule shielding those who hire independent contractors from liability for injuries to contractor employees. The complaint’s assertions that FirstEnergy Service directed how work was performed were conclusory, while its more specific allegations described contract specifications, safety oversight, inspections, monitoring, and general supervision—conduct that did not amount to control over the contractor’s methods or operative details. Because FirstEnergy Service was not negligent, the court also rejected the claim that FirstEnergy Corp. was vicariously liable.
The court further held that Allegheny Energy Supply owed no duty to protect Hatt from an open and obvious danger. North American Dismantling had agreed that it examined the site and informed itself of its physical conditions, and the court concluded that reasonable minds could not disagree that demolishing structures at an industrial facility shuttered for nine years presented an apparent risk. Judge Restrepo dissented, reasoning that both retained control and whether the danger was open and obvious were fact-intensive issues that should not have been resolved before discovery.
Key Takeaways
- Under Pennsylvania law, contract specifications, safety rules, inspections, and general project oversight do not, without more, establish retained control over an independent contractor’s methods or operative details.
- A retained-control claim must plead concrete facts showing how the hiring party controlled the manner of performance; conclusory assertions that it issued directions or controlled the work are insufficient.
- The court held at the pleading stage that the risks of demolishing the long-disused power plant were open and obvious, while the dissent would have allowed factual development through discovery.
Why It Matters
The decision permits dismissal of retained-control and open-and-obvious-danger claims at the pleading stage when the alleged facts, even accepted as true, would not establish a duty under Pennsylvania law. It underscores that extensive contractual, safety, and supervisory involvement does not necessarily make a project owner or operator liable for injuries to an independent contractor’s employee.
The dissent cautioned that the ruling effectively raises the pleading bar in wrongful-death cases and resolves questions Pennsylvania courts ordinarily treat as factual only after an evidentiary record has been developed.