Synopsis of Rule of Law. Although an employer is generally not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor, there is an exception to this rule which stems from the nondelegable duty doctrine. Nondelegable duties can be imposed on an employer where the performance of the work itself is inherently dangerous.
Â
An appellate court should affirm the trial court's decision to grant a directed verdict if when the evidence is viewed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds could only find against the nonmoving party.
View Full Point of LawÂ
Issue. Whether Grief Brothers can be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor.
Â
Held. Yes. Although an employer is generally not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor, there are exceptions to this rule which stem from the nondelegable duty doctrine. Nondelegable duties can be imposed on an employer where the performance of the work itself is inherently dangerous. In such cases, the employer may delegate the work to an independent contractor, but not the duty. In other words, the employer is not insulated from liability if the independent contractor’s negligence results in a breach of the duty. To fall within this inherently dangerous work exception, the work must be such that it involves a risk of physical harm to others which is inherent in the work itself. The court held that the security work that YSP was hired to perform did fall within the inherently dangerous work exception. Thus, Grief Brothers could be held vicariously liable even though the guard was an employee of an independent contractor.
Â
Discussion. When courts say a duty is nondelegable, they mean only that the person who hires an independent contractor does not escape liability under the independent contractor rules. The independent contractor himself is also liable for his own negligence.