In certain employment situations, an employer may be held liable to third persons for the acts of their employees- this is called vicarious liability. If an employer is held vicariously liable, they may owe a duty of care to third parties that are injured by an employee. This rule is also linked to the doctrine of “respondeat superior” or “let the person higher up answer” for the acts of employees within the “scope of employment.” Another system that covers many non-ag employment situations is workers’ compensation. It’s not a fault-based system, but once a valid claim is made, compensation is set by statute. But, does the rule of employer-liability for damages caused by an employee incurred in the scope of employment extend to independent contractors?
In this case, a trucking company was hired by a large national trucking company (the defendant) to haul freight as an independent contractor, and one of their drivers was seriously injured when she walked behind a semi-trailer truck and was run over. The driver of the truck had been employed by the company for nearly fifty years and did not have any record of accidents during his employment. The injured driver (the plaintiff) sued the defendant for worker’s compensation benefits and was awarded nearly $336,000 in benefits.
The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant had not exercised reasonable care in selecting the smaller company as an independent contractor. The trial court dismissed this claim, stating that the defendant owed no duty of care to employees or independent contractors of the smaller company.
On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and cited the Second Restatement of Torts §411 as authority for the trial court’s dismissal of the negligent hiring claim against the national company. §411 states that an employer is subject to liability for physical harm to third persons only when they fail to employ “competent and careful” contractors. Here, the smaller company performed their work “skillfully” and “carefully.” Thus, the defendant owed no duty to the employee or independent contractor of the smaller company because they were not negligent in selecting a contractor to haul goods for them. The plaintiff was already compensated by the smaller company and the national company was not “grossly negligent” in hiring an independent contractor. Jones v. Schneider National, Inc., No. 0-938/09-1813 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2011).