 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
|
Bagley v. Insight Communications Co., L.P., 658 N.E.2d 584 |
Supreme Court of Indiana |
1995 |
|||
|
Chapter |
13 |
Title |
Vicarious Liability |
||
|
Page |
567 |
Topic |
Independent Contractors |
||
|
Quick Notes |
Five Exceptions in which the principal is liable for the negligence of an independent contractor |
||||
|
Issue |
o Whether Insight or Crawford should have foreseen that the performance of the work for which Friend was ultimately hired would probably cause injury absent due precaution, so as to quality for the fourth exception? |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Summary judgment in favor of Insight and Crawford. |
|
Appellant |
o Affirmed in a divided opinion |
|
Supreme |
o Affirmed. The requirements of the fourth exception are not satisfied. |
|
Facts |
Reason |
Rules |
|
Pl - Richard Bagley Df - Insight What happened? o Bagley suffered a severe brain and head injuries while working as an employee of Sam Friend. o Sam Friend was a subcontractor for Steve Crawford. o Crawford was a television cable installer who was a subcontractor for Insight Communications. Action o Damages based on liability were brought on Insight, Crawford, and Friend. Trial Court o Summary judgment in favor of Insight and Crawford. Court of Appeals o Affirmed in a divided opinion. |
Three Questions 1. Whether Insight and Crawford were negligent in hiring a subcontractor? Split 2. Whether Insight and Crawford breached a duty to provide property safety procedures? No. (C. App). 3. Whether Insight and Crawford had assumed a duty to provide insurance to cover Bagleys injuries? No. (C. App).
Five Exceptions in which the principal is liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. 1. Where the contract requires the performance of intrinsically dangerous work. 2. Where the principal is by law or contract charged with performing the specific duty. 3. Where the act will create a nuisance. 4. Where the act to be performed will probably cause injury to others unless due precaution is taken. a. The principal should have foreseen that the performance of the work or conditions under which it was to be preformed would, absent precautionary measures, probably cause injury. 5. Where the act to be performed is illegal.
Negligent Hiring Of A subcontractor o Pl Arg: A Genuine issue of material fact exists. o Df Arg: The duty to use reasonable care in hiring does not extend to protect employees of an incompetent contractor.
Pearson o The Pl sought damages for injuries, b/c the o (1) Df knew when it employed person to make repairs that they were incompetent and o (2) the Df knew that the work was so unskillfully and negligently done as to leave the bridge in an unsafe condition. o Pearson permitted an action for the breach of a non-delegable duty imposed by law. o This reflects the second exception.
Rule/Public Policy o The duties associated with Indianas five exceptions are considered non-delegable, and an employer will be liable for the negligence of the contractor, because responsibilities are deemed so important to the community that the employer should not be permitted to transfer these duties to another. o An employer of an independent contractor may be subject to liability for personal injuries caused by the employers failure to exercise reasonable care to employee a component and careful contractor when one of the five exceptions to the rule on non-liability for the torts of independent contractor is applicable.
Court Of Appeals o Restricted exception to only third parties and not servants, b/c of
Supreme Court o To exclude injured workers is against public policies concerns in which the employer is encouraged to participate in the control of work covered by the exceptions in order to minimize risk of resulting injuries. Supreme Court (Cont) o When injured as an employee of an independent contractor does not deprive him the right to seek application of one or more of the 5 exception to the rule of non-liability for the torts of an independent contractor.
Pl - Claim Forth Exception o The nature of the claim of the Pl - claim deals with the forth exception.
Forth Exception Analysis o Whether at the time Friend was employed as an independent contractor, there existed a peculiar risk which was reasonably foreseeable and which recognizably called for precautionary measures. o Facts: Bagley was hammering a rod into the ground by a ladder that was on ice and it slipped driving Bagleys head down onto the rod.
Holding o At the time the contract was made, the delegated work did not present the peculiar probability that an injury would result UNLESS precautionary measure would taken. o The employer could NOT have been expected to foresee the sort of injury which actually occurred.
|
|
|
Class Notes |
|
General Rule for Independent Contractor o Principal is NOT vicariously liable for torts of independent contractors.
Rule/Public Policy o Non-delegable duties are deemed so important to the community that the employer should not be permitted to transfer these duties to another. o These exceptions are all things that are dangerous, and are important to the community as a whole. This gives the principal a duty to keep an eye on their independent contractors to confirm they are doing it safely.
Five Exceptions in which the principal is liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. 1. Where the contract requires the performance of intrinsically dangerous work. 2. Where the principal is by law or contract charged with performing the specific duty. 3. Where the act will create a nuisance. 4. Where the act to be performed will probably cause injury to others unless due precaution is taken. a. The principal should have foreseen that the performance of the work or conditions under which it was to be preformed would, absent precautionary measures, probably cause injury. 5. Where the act to be performed is illegal.
|