Blogs

Third Circuit clarifies scope of contractor duties in workplace safety case

7/28/26

By: Sunshine Fellows

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an important decision for employers that rely on equipment manufacturers, vendors, and outside contractors to provide services in the workplace. In Byers v. Finishing Systems, Inc., the court held that a contractor’s tort duty extends only as far as the responsibilities it actually undertook. Because the equipment manufacturer agreed only to install paint pumps and provide limited operational training, it did not assume responsibility for providing comprehensive workplace safety training. As Judge Bibas succinctly explained at the outset of the opinion, “When tragedy strikes, people naturally look for someone to blame. But tragedy does not create duty.”

Background of the case

The case arose from a tragic fire at the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania. The Army hired a contractor to upgrade paint-mixing equipment, and the contractor’s subcontractor purchased paint pumps from the defendant manufacturer. Under the parties’ agreement, the manufacturer installed the pumps and provided training on their operation and maintenance. The training covered how to operate the equipment but did not include comprehensive instruction regarding workplace safety or the hazards associated with handling highly flammable paint thinner.

Two months after the installation, a fire caused by static discharge ignited paint thinner vapors in the paint-mixing room, killing two employees and seriously injuring another. The injured worker and the estates of the deceased employees sued the manufacturer, alleging that it negligently failed to provide adequate safety training.

The Third Circuit’s decision

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. Applying Pennsylvania law and Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court emphasized that a party undertaking to perform services for another assumes only those duties it actually agrees to perform. Here, the manufacturer’s undertaking was limited to supplying, installing, and explaining the operation of its equipment. It never agreed to oversee workplace safety, provide comprehensive hazard training, or assume the Army Depot’s broader responsibility for protecting its employees.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the manufacturer’s expertise or superior knowledge regarding the equipment expanded its legal obligations. Likewise, the court found no evidence that the manufacturer increased the risk of harm, assumed the Depot’s workplace safety duties, or induced the employees to rely on it for comprehensive safety training. Because its undertaking was limited, so too was its legal duty.

Practical takeaways for employers

Although Byers arose in the context of a tort claim against an equipment manufacturer, the decision offers several practical lessons for employers.

First, employers should carefully define the responsibilities of vendors, contractors, and equipment manufacturers in written agreements. Courts will closely examine what a contractor actually agreed to do when determining whether it assumed a legal duty. If an employer expects a contractor to provide OSHA-related training, hazard communication, or other workplace safety instruction, those responsibilities should be expressly included in the contract rather than left to implication.

Second, employers should avoid assuming that operational training provided by a manufacturer satisfies the employer’s own workplace safety obligations. A vendor may explain how to operate equipment, but responsibility for developing and implementing comprehensive safety training generally remains with the employer unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.

Finally, Byers serves as another reminder that the Third Circuit continues to distinguish between an employer’s legal obligations and attempts to expand liability beyond those established by law. Just one day earlier, in Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc., the court reaffirmed that employers may enforce neutral workplace rules when employees fail to timely request accommodations or medical leave.

Together, these recent decisions reflect the Third Circuit’s willingness to apply established legal principles without expanding employer or third-party liability beyond the duties actually imposed by statute, common law, or contract. For employers, the message is clear: clearly defined responsibilities, thoughtful documentation, and consistent compliance practices remain the best tools for managing workplace risk.

For more information on this topic, please contact Sunshine Fellows or your local FMG relationship partner.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.