Mavrikidis v. Petullo

Brief Fact Summary.

Mavrikidis filed suit after an independent contractor hired by Petullo crashed into Mavrikidis and spilled hot asphalt on Mavrikidis’ car.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A company is not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor if the company controls the equipment to be used, the way the work is supposed to be performed, and the employees of the independent contractor.

Facts.

Pascarello hired the Petullo Brothers, Inc. to supply asphalt and concrete for the purpose of renovating the station’s parking lot and service area. Petullo crashed into Mavrikidis and spilled hot asphalt on Mavrikidis’ car causing Mavrikidis to burn injuries. The trial court attributed 89 percent of the fault to Pascarello and the appellate court reversed.

Issue.

Whether a company is liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor if the company controls the equipment to be used, the way the work is supposed to be performed, and the employees of the independent contractor.

Held.

No. The judgment of the appellate court is affirmed. Pascarellos’ acts had to do with the renovation the service station’s parking lot and not on the specific work being done by the Petullos. Pascarello cannot be held vicariously liable for the injuries caused to Mavrikidis.

Discussion.

A company is not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor if the company controls the equipment to be used, the way the work is supposed to be performed, and the employees of the independent contractor.