The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently affirmed a jury's ruling in favor of Jesse Hernandez, who suffered severe injuries after being struck by a train while working on a construction project. The court's decision, filed on October 28, 2026, is significant as it addresses workplace safety and employer liability under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).

Hernandez, who was employed by Minority Services, Inc. (MSI), was injured on March 12, 2018, while performing trenching work near the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) train tracks. The court's ruling impacts not only Hernandez but also sets a precedent for how statutory employer immunity is interpreted in Pennsylvania.

Background

The case, Jesse Hernandez v. Independence Construction Corporation (ICC), arose after Hernandez was hit by a SEPTA train while performing trenching work as part of his job with MSI, a subcontractor for ICC. ICC had a long-standing contract with SEPTA for construction projects involving trenching to lay electrical conduit. Hernandez had been working for MSI for about two years prior to the accident.

The incident left Hernandez with significant injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures. He filed a lawsuit against ICC and SEPTA, claiming negligence. He argued that both entities failed to ensure a safe working environment and that the safety measures required by their contract were inadequate.

ICC sought to dismiss the case by claiming statutory employer immunity under the WCA, which protects employers from tort liability if they provide workers' compensation benefits. The trial court denied ICC's motion for summary judgment, leading to a jury trial where the jury ultimately found ICC, SEPTA, and Hernandez all negligent, with ICC bearing the majority of the liability.

The Ruling

The Pennsylvania Superior Court, led by Judge Lane, reviewed the case and upheld the jury's decision. The court found that the trial court had correctly denied ICC's claims of statutory employer immunity. The court stated, "The trial court's interpretation of the term 'excavation' within section 302(a) to exclude trenching work performed by MSI is supported by the record and the law."

The court emphasized that section 302(a) of the WCA applies to specific types of work, primarily involving the extraction of minerals, and does not extend to general construction activities like trenching. The jury had allocated liability as follows: ICC was found 70% liable, SEPTA 29%, and Hernandez 1%, resulting in a judgment of over $7.2 million for Hernandez.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for workplace safety and employer liability in Pennsylvania. It clarifies the boundaries of statutory employer immunity under the WCA, particularly regarding what constitutes 'excavation.' The court's decision reinforces the idea that general contractors cannot claim immunity for negligence in cases involving routine construction activities.

The ruling may encourage injured workers to pursue claims against general contractors, knowing that the statutory employer defense may not apply in similar circumstances. It also highlights the importance of safety measures on construction sites, particularly when working near active train tracks.

What's Next

ICC may seek to appeal the ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence future interpretations of the WCA and the responsibilities of general contractors in Pennsylvania.