are employers liable for actions of independent contractors?
In today’s world, claims and litigation have become increasingly commonplace. For this reason, companies must minimize their potential exposure to liability for the acts of employees and independent contractors. Such exposure may vary depending upon whether an individual would be recognized by the courts as an independent contractor rather than as an employee. In any such event, it isn’t a defense in the Seventh Circuit for the employer to claim that because it had no authority to control the conduct of its invitee, its employees had no recourse when subjected to the invitee’s harassment. In the past, the extent of employers’ liability for the actions of others mostly was limited to the actions of its employees. As inexcusable and appalling as the manner of the physician’s harassment of the plaintiff, it wasn’t the basis for the hospital’s vicarious liability. This was irrelevant in the court’s eyes. Rather, it was the hospital’s inaction, upon notice of the physician’s harassment, which gave rise to its vicarious liability. Now, more than ever, companies must manage their exposure to liability in order to reduce claim-related costs. In assessing their exposure, companies need to understand their legal relationship with the individuals who allegedly caused injury to a third-party. California, for example, follows the peculiar risk doctrine, which attributes responsibility for injuries or damages caused by independent contractors to the employers that hired them, but only in the following two situations: By Darren A. Feider. Generally, businesses that hire independent contractors are absolved from any liability for the wrongful acts of those independent contractors unless the work is “inherently dangerous activity.” The concept is that businesses cannot contract away the responsibility for dangerous activities. The distinction between an employee and independent contractor is critical because companies are generally liable for actions of employees, as long as those actions are performed within the scope of the employment relationship. However, companies are not generally liable for the actions of independent contractors. Under traditional employee/employer vicarious liability rules of law, an employer couldn’t be liable for the actions of those not under its control. Control traditionally has been one of the elements of proving an employer/employee relationship. This distinction, under the court’s analysis, is irrelevant for a sexual harassment analysis under Title VII. Under Title VII, an employer’s liability is “direct” and not solely “derivative” from the acts of its employees. This concept was recently addressed in Stout v. Johnson, 159 Wn. App. 344 (2011), where a criminal sued a bail bond company for injuries that he sustained when the bail bond company’s independent contractor – i.e., the bounty hunter – apprehended him after he failed to appear in court for a scheduled hearing.
No