A Pennsylvania appellate court has upheld a $37.5 million judgment against a Philadelphia construction company following the death of a subcontractor who fell roughly 45 feet from a townhouse project.

In a unanimous decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the company, acting as the project’s general contractor, owed a duty to ensure basic jobsite safety protections, even though the worker was employed by a subcontractor.

The Superior Court ruling affirms a Philadelphia jury’s verdict and reinforces a central principle of Pennsylvania construction law: companies responsible for coordinating a construction project cannot avoid liability for dangerous conditions simply by delegating work to subcontractors. For contractors and developers across the Commonwealth, including projects underway in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and throughout Northeast Pennsylvania, the decision highlights how courts analyze duty, foreseeability, and safety responsibility on construction sites.

The case arises from the December 2021 death of Siarhei Marhunou, a 38-year-old worker installing siding on a luxury townhouse development in Philadelphia. According to the court’s opinion, Marhunou fell approximately 45 feet from a balcony while performing exterior work.

Evidence presented during trial showed that he had not been provided with a fall-arrest system which is equipment designed to stop a worker from hitting the ground in the event of a fall. Fall protection systems are widely recognized as a basic safeguard when workers are operating at significant heights.

Marhunou left behind a wife and a young son. His family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against several companies involved in the construction project, alleging that the site lacked necessary safety protections.

In June 2024, a Philadelphia jury returned a verdict in favor of the family and allocated 50 percent of the responsibility for the fatal accident to OCF Construction LLC, the company serving as general contractor.

On appeal, OCF argued that it did not owe a duty to the worker because Marhunou was employed by a subcontractor rather than directly by OCF. The company also contended that it had been terminated as general contractor prior to the fatal incident. The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected both arguments.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Kate Ford Elliott concluded that the company’s contractual obligations and role on the project established that it had undertaken responsibility for coordinating the construction site, including safety functions necessary to complete the work.

The court relied in part on Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a doctrine recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Under that rule, a party that undertakes to provide services necessary to protect others may be liable if it fails to exercise reasonable care in performing those services. Because OCF had agreed to oversee the project and facilitate construction, the court concluded that it had assumed responsibilities related to jobsite safety.

The panel also emphasized that the risk of a catastrophic fall from an elevated construction site was plainly foreseeable if proper safety measures were not implemented.

Construction defendants frequently argue that responsibility for safety belongs solely to the subcontractor employing the worker. Pennsylvania courts, however, routinely examine the broader structure of the project. In this case, the Superior Court found that OCF’s contractual obligations and oversight role placed it in a position to implement or require safety protections across the jobsite.

The court also rejected arguments that the company had been replaced as general contractor before the accident occurred. Evidence presented at trial showed significant ambiguity surrounding the alleged termination of OCF’s role, including overlapping ownership interests between the companies involved in the project.

Given those facts, the appellate court concluded that the jury had sufficient evidence to determine that OCF remained responsible for the site when the fatal fall occurred.

OCF also challenged the size of the verdict, arguing that the damages were excessive. The Superior Court disagreed. While the panel acknowledged that the record contained limited evidence regarding the family’s economic losses, it emphasized that wrongful death damages in Pennsylvania include significant non-economic components, particularly the loss of companionship, guidance, and support experienced by surviving family members.

The court explained that non-economic damages do not follow a strict formula. Based on the evidence presented regarding the impact of Marhunou’s death on his wife and young son, the jury’s award was supported by the record. The total damages awarded in the case reached approximately $68.5 million across all defendants involved in the project.

Falls from height remain one of the leading causes of fatalities in the construction industry. Federal safety regulations, including OSHA standards, require fall protection systems in many elevated work environments precisely because the risk of serious injury or death is well understood. The Superior Court’s decision reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will examine who actually assumed responsibility for jobsite safety, not simply who employed the injured worker.

For construction projects across the Commonwealth, including developments underway in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and throughout Northeast Pennsylvania, the ruling highlights several recurring themes in construction liability cases:

• General contractors responsible for coordinating a project may owe safety duties to all workers on site.
• Contract language alone does not eliminate responsibility for foreseeable hazards.
• Known risks, such as falls from elevated structures, require proactive safety protections.

When those protections are absent, courts and juries may impose substantial liability.

Appellate decisions like this one shape how Pennsylvania courts analyze duty, negligence, and responsibility on construction sites. At Anzalone & Doyle Trial Lawyers, we closely monitor developments in Pennsylvania appellate law because they define how negligence claims are evaluated in real cases. Decisions like this reinforce a straightforward principle: preventable safety failures on construction sites can carry significant legal consequences for those responsible for managing the work.

The team of experienced personal injury attorneys at Anzalone & Doyle Trial Lawyers represent individuals and families throughout Pennsylvania harmed through no fault of their own. If a construction company’s negligence resulted in you or a loved one being injured, our attorneys are available to help you understand your legal options.