Peabody v. Town of Mansfield, 426 Mass. 436 (1998)
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a Contractor which substantially completed its contract was entitled to recover the fair value of its work even though it breached the contract by failing to complete on time. The Court allowed recovery because it determined the Contractor's failure to complete on time was unintentional. Had the Contractor's failure been intentional, it would have been denied any recovery.
The Court also ruled the Owner was not entitled to assess liquidated damages against the Contractor for late completion where both the Owner and Contractor shared blame for the delay.
DiLaveris v. W.T. Rich Co., 424 Mass. 9 (1997)
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that an employee of a Subcontractor injured on the job could sue the General Contractor for unsafe conditions contributing to his injury. The Court determined that where the contract gives the General Contractor control over Subcontractors with respect to safety issues, the General Contractor assumes a duty of due care to employees of Subcontractors working on the job.
Marino v. Commissioner of Labor and Industries, 426 Mass. 458 (1997)
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Commissioner of Labor and Industries had the power to use collectively bargained wage rates to determine prevailing wage rates to be used on public construction projects.
Mass. Laborers District Council v. Board of Elevator Regulations, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (1997)
The Appeals Court ruled that the Board of Elevator Regulations exceeded its power by enacting regulations prohibiting all but licensed elevator workers from removing existing elevators. The Court determined that the state statute under which the Board derived its powers did not authorize such a broad prohibition.
Sciaba Construction Co. v. Bean, Inc., 43 Mass. App. Ct. 66 (1997)
The Appeals Court ruled that an indemnification agreement which required a Subcontractor to indemnify the Contractor, Owner and Architect against damages, without regard to whether the Subcontractor was in any way at fault in causing the damage, was void under state statute, and unenforceable against the Subcontractor.
This
newsletter is intended to provide general information of interest to the
construction industry. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice or
to address fact specific issues. For that you should consult your legal
counsel. Corwin & Corwin LLP assumes no liability in connection with the
use of this newsletter. The Supreme Judicial Court may consider this material
advertising.
©1992-2000 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved.