Should a subcontractor on a building renovation project be liable for a pre-existing safety hazard that had nothing to do with the sub's scope of work? The immediate answer would seem to be no. But, would the answer change if the subcontractor possessed actual knowledge of the hazard and failed to notify the prime contractor, resulting in the subsequent injury of the prime's employees?

This was the situation recently addressed by a California court. The court could find no duty owed by the subcontractor to the prime or its employees under the terms of the subcontract or under the common law of negligence. Then the court considered the state labor statute: Cal-OSHA. The result is surprising.

Another case this week involved a conflict between a cross section drawing and an explanatory note on the drawing. The issue was whether this was a patent, obvious ambiguity, obligating the contractor to seek pre-bid clarification from the project owner. It was a close case, reflected by a split 3-2 decision.

The third case this week involves a paving subcontractor's reasonable opportunity to complete its work. The prime contractor let the original subcontract schedule slide, and then demanded that the sub finish the paving within three days. The problem was that temperatures dipped below the minimum level required by the specifications.