Lopes v. Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617 (1978)

A county’s non-delegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition extends to the traveling public but not to employees of an independent contractor injured while working on a road construction project.

Summary

This case addresses whether a county’s non-delegable duty to maintain safe roads extends to employees of an independent contractor working on a county road construction project. The New York Court of Appeals held that this duty is intended to protect the traveling public, not the contractor’s employees. The court reasoned that the contractor, being in control of the work site, is responsible for the safety of its employees. Allowing recovery would improperly shift responsibility from the employer to the county. This decision limits the scope of the county’s liability under Highway Law §§ 102 and 139.

Facts

Zara Contracting Co. was hired by Nassau County for a sewer construction project. Manuel Lopes and Vito Martino, Zara employees, were injured when struck by a car driven by Harold Rostad while repairing a manhole. The accident occurred on a county highway. A red flag was the only warning device present. The contract between Zara and the county stipulated that Zara was responsible for providing warning signs and barricades.

Procedural History

Lopes’ estate and Martino sued Rostad and Nassau County. The County then brought a third-party claim against Zara for indemnification. The jury found Rostad 70% liable and the County 30% liable. The trial court granted the County indemnification from Zara. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the non-delegable duty of a county to maintain its roads in a safe condition, which applies to the traveling public, extends to employees of an independent contractor who suffer injuries caused in part by the contractor’s negligence while working on a county road construction project.

Holding

No, because the county’s non-delegable duty to maintain its roads in a safe condition is intended to protect the traveling public, and not employees of an independent contractor working on a construction project.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while Highway Law §§ 102 and 139 impose a non-delegable duty on the county to maintain its roads, the legislative intent behind these statutes was to protect the traveling public. The court stated, “In many cases the evident policy of the legislature is to protect only a limited class of individuals. If so, the plaintiff must bring himself within the class in order to maintain an action based on the statute.” The court emphasized that since the duty’s inception, courts have consistently held that it is intended to safeguard those who travel the roadways, citing Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 N.Y. 104, 108. The court reasoned that extending this duty to employees of independent contractors would be inappropriate because the contractor is best positioned to maintain safe working conditions. “Being in control of the daily operation of the project, the employer, not the governmental body with which it is under contract, is in the best position to maintain safe working conditions and to remedy whatever dangers may exist.” The court distinguished situations where the independent contractor’s negligence injures a member of the traveling public, in which case the county would still be liable. Here, the injury was to the contractor’s own employees due to the contractor’s negligence. The court noted that the contract placed responsibility for warning devices on the contractor (Zara), further supporting the conclusion that the County was not liable. The court explicitly declined to address the County’s liability under Section 241 of the Labor Law.