The Oregon Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in Bock v. Vigor Works, LLC, 343 Or App 514 (2025), that underscores how the Oregon Employer Liability Act (ELA) can expose companies to liability for injuries on worksites — even when the injured worker isn’t their direct employee.
The Case in Brief
The plaintiff, an employee of a third-party contractor, was injured while performing repairs on property leased by Vigor Works LLC and Vigor Industrial LLC. He sued Vigor and the property owner, alleging: (1) Employer Liability Act (ELA) violations, (2) common law negligence, and, (3) premises liability.
The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed in part — allowing the ELA claims against Vigor to proceed.
Understanding the Employer Liability Act
The Employer Liability Act is a long-standing Oregon statute that imposes a heightened duty of care on employers and those in charge of work involving risk or danger.
Under the ELA:
- Companies must use every device, care, and precaution practicable to protect workers. ORS 654.305.
- Liability isn’t limited to a company’s own employees — it extends to any workers exposed to risk under their control or supervision. ORS 654.310.
- The standard is stricter than ordinary negligence; even a small lapse in safety precautions can lead to liability.
This law means that businesses overseeing or controlling dangerous work can be held responsible for injuries to another company’s employees if they fail to maintain a safe work environment.
Why the Court Reversed
The central question was whether Vigor could be treated as an “employer” under the ELA for an independent contractor’s employee. The Court found that factual disputes remained about Vigor’s control over the worksite and its safety procedures — issues that a jury must decide, not a judge on summary judgment.
The Court emphasized that:
- The ELA imposes greater obligations than ordinary negligence; and
- If a company has the right to control or direct the work, it may owe those heightened duties under the statute.
By contrast, the Court affirmed dismissal of the common law negligence and premises liability claims, which require proof of ordinary fault rather than the ELA’s “every practicable precaution” standard.
Practical Takeaways for Employers and Property Owners
- Control matters. Courts will examine who had the right to direct or oversee work, even if the injured person was employed by another company.
- Contracts and leases should be clear. Defining responsibility for maintenance, repairs, and safety protocols can reduce exposure.
- Documentation is critical. Records of inspections, safety measures, and oversight can make the difference in litigation.
Landlords can limit risk. The decision affirmed dismissal for the property owner, signaling that lessors may avoid liability when operational control rests solely with the tenant.
What This Means for Businesses
For companies that own or lease space, engage contractors, or operate worksites with third-party vendors, Bock is a reminder that liability may extend beyond your direct employees. Businesses should regularly review their contracts, leases, and workplace safety procedures to ensure responsibilities are clearly allocated and risks are managed effectively.
At Chenoweth Law Group, we help businesses and property owners assess liability exposure and strengthen their contracts and operating practices to reduce risk. If you have questions about employer liability or workplace safety obligations, our team can provide guidance tailored to your operations.
If you have questions about how the ELA might affect your operations or current litigation, contact Chenoweth Law Group LLC to discuss your situation.
