Important and Groundbreaking Ruling:
The Duties and Responsibilities of a Client in Selecting a Contractor to Perform Work
Apr 19, 2024
By: Shlomi Hadar, Attorney
Background
Our case concerns a lawsuit filed by the estate of a construction worker who was killed in a work accident when he fell from one of the parts of the building where he was working (hereinafter: " the deceased "). The lawsuit was filed against all parties involved in the project, including the contractor selected to carry out the project, the engineer, and also the apartment owners for whom the work was performed and who contracted with the contractor to carry out the work.
By: Shlomi Hadar, Attorney
background
Our case concerns a lawsuit filed by the estate of a construction worker who was killed in a work accident when he fell from one of the parts of the building where he was working (hereinafter: " the deceased "). The lawsuit was filed against all parties involved in the project, including the contractor selected to carry out the project, the engineer, and also the apartment owners for whom the work was performed and who contracted with the contractor to carry out the work.
The court's decision
The court ruled that the contractor breached his duty of care towards the deceased, both by virtue of being the deceased's employer, and by virtue of being the site contractor and as the person responsible for the construction site. The court ruled that the evidence and testimonies presented to it indicate the absence of safety measures at the construction site and the absence of supervision, supervision or any other safety mechanism intended to ensure the deceased's well-being and safety at the construction site, and therefore the court accepted the claims against him.
The apartment owners relied on the defense provided for in Section 15 of the ordinance, according to which a person who entered into a contract with another person to perform an act on his behalf will not be liable for a tort that arose while performing that act - and in our case - according to the apartment owners, Section 15 exempts them from liability for the contractor's negligence that led to the death of the construction worker who was killed.
However, to the regret of the apartment owners, the court clarified that this is not an absolute defense and that in this case the exception in section 15 applies, which states that the defense does not apply in a situation of negligence in the actual selection of the professional to perform the work. Accordingly, the court determined that in our case the apartment owners were negligent in the actual selection of the contractor with whom they contracted to perform the work.
The court ruled that the contractor breached his duty of care towards the deceased, both by virtue of being the deceased's employer, and by virtue of being the site contractor and as the person responsible for the construction site. The court ruled that the evidence and testimonies presented to it indicate the absence of safety measures at the construction site and the absence of supervision, supervision or any other safety mechanism intended to ensure the deceased's well-being and safety at the construction site, and therefore the court accepted the claims against him.
The apartment owners relied on the defense provided for in Section 15 of the ordinance, according to which a person who entered into a contract with another person to perform an act on his behalf will not be liable for a tort that arose while performing that act - and in our case - according to the apartment owners, Section 15 exempts them from liability for the contractor's negligence that led to the death of the construction worker who was killed.
However, to the regret of the apartment owners, the court clarified that this is not an absolute defense and that in this case the exception in section 15 applies, which states that the defense does not apply in a situation of negligence in the actual selection of the professional to perform the work. Accordingly, the court determined that in our case the apartment owners were negligent in the actual selection of the contractor with whom they contracted to perform the work.
The court ruled that this negligence was manifested in the fact that the apartment owners did not bother to inquire with the contractor about his qualifications and whether he was a registered contractor , and that they did not make efforts to ensure that the construction on the site was carried out according to safety rules and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The court ruled that its determination is given new force in light of the fact that even after the accident in which the deceased was killed, the apartment owners continued to employ the contractor until the work was completed without inquiring with him about the circumstances of the accident and the manner in which he ensured the safety of the workers and residents at the construction site.
The court also noted that a condition for starting the work in accordance with the building permits on the basis of which the work was carried out is a declaration to the planning authorities that the work is being carried out by a contractor registered in the Contractors' Register , but in practice the contractor chosen was not a registered contractor.
In light of this, the court ruled that the apartment owners were not only negligent in choosing the contractor, but also personally violated their obligation to the planning institutions . The court also determined that this reflected the apartment owners' turning a blind eye and their negligence towards the contractor's employees.
Negligence in choosing a contractor?
Summary
This ruling sends a deterrent message to the public about the caution required when choosing a professional to perform the work and the responsibility placed on the client to ensure that the professional has all the appropriate training to perform the work and that he adheres to and works according to the safety rules and procedures required by law.
This important message is also a tool for licensed professionals to present to potential clients the importance of choosing a licensed professional.
It should be taken into account that the existence of a license to perform the work may have implications for most insurance policies that cover professional negligence, and therefore, not only is the client or the person performing the operation acting in violation of the law, they are also unable to benefit from adequate insurance coverage.
This ruling sends a deterrent message to the public about the caution required when choosing a professional to perform the work and the responsibility placed on the client to ensure that the professional has all the appropriate training to perform the work and that he adheres to and works according to the safety rules and procedures required by law.
This important message is also a tool for licensed professionals to present to potential clients the importance of choosing a licensed professional.
It should be taken into account that the existence of a license to perform the work may have implications for most insurance policies that cover professional negligence, and therefore, not only is the client or the person performing the operation acting in violation of the law, they are also unable to benefit from adequate insurance coverage.
מסמכים
