Pl - Richard
Df - Insight
Bagley suffered a severe brain and head injuries while working as an
employee of Sam Friend.
Sam Friend was a subcontractor for Steve Crawford.
Crawford was a television cable installer who was a subcontractor for
Damages based on liability were brought on Insight, Crawford, and
Summary judgment in favor of Insight
Affirmed in a divided opinion.
Whether Insight and Crawford were negligent in hiring a subcontractor?
Whether Insight and Crawford breached a duty to provide property safety
procedures? No. (C. App).
Whether Insight and Crawford had assumed a duty to provide insurance to
cover Bagleys injuries? No. (C. App).
in which the principal is liable for the negligence of an
Where the contract requires the performance of intrinsically dangerous
Where the principal is by law
or contract charged with
performing the specific duty.
Where the act will create a nuisance.
Where the act to be performed will probably cause injury to others
unless due precaution is taken.
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.
Where the act to be performed is illegal.
Hiring Of A subcontractor
Pl Arg: A Genuine issue of material fact exists.
Df Arg: The duty to use reasonable care in hiring does not extend to
protect employees of an incompetent contractor.
The Pl sought damages for injuries, b/c the
(1) Df knew when it employed person to make repairs that they were
(2) the Df knew that the work was so unskillfully and negligently done
as to leave the bridge in an unsafe condition.
Pearson permitted an action for the breach of a non-delegable duty
imposed by law.
This reflects the second exception.
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.
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
Restricted exception to only third parties and not servants, b/c of
more aware than a third part of the dangers.
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
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
Pl - Claim
The nature of the claim of the Pl - claim deals with the forth
Forth Exception Analysis
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.
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.
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.
The employer could NOT have been expected to foresee the sort of injury
which actually occurred.