Quick Summary
Ethel Pusey (plaintiff) filed a wrongful death action against Greif Brothers Corporation (defendant), who hired Youngstown Security Patrol Inc. (YSP) to provide security at their plant. The issue was whether Greif Brothers could be held liable for the actions of Eric Bator, an armed guard employed by YSP, who fatally shot Derrell Pusey. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that hiring armed guards constitutes inherently dangerous work, making Greif Brothers potentially liable under the nondelegable duty exception.
Facts of the Case
Greif Brothers Corporation, a steel drum manufacturer, hired Youngstown Security Patrol Inc. (YSP) to provide security services at its manufacturing plant in Youngstown, Ohio due to a series of thefts. YSP was contracted to deter theft and vandalism, with instructions to periodically check the parking lot and inside the building. There was no explicit discussion or agreement on whether the guards would be armed, although it was known that some guards carried firearms.
On June 30, 1991, YSP hired Eric Bator as a security guard. Although he was hired as an unarmed guard, Bator carried a gun to his shifts due to feeling uneasy about working without one. On August 12, 1991, during his shift at Greif Brothers’ property, Bator observed two individuals—Derrell Pusey and Charles Thomas—on the property. Bator confronted them; after an exchange where Pusey used profane language and made a sudden movement, Bator shot Pusey in the head, leading to his death.
Following the incident, Ethel Pusey filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against Bator, YSP, and Greif Brothers. Bator and YSP settled with Pusey, leaving Greif Brothers as the sole defendant. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Greif Brothers, ruling that YSP was an independent contractor and thus Greif Brothers was not liable for Bator’s actions under the general rule exempting employers from liability for independent contractors’ negligent acts.
Procedural Posture and History
- Pusey initially filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against Bator, YSP, and Greif Brothers in trial court.
- Bator and YSP settled with Pusey shortly after the jury trial began.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Greif Brothers, holding that they were not liable because YSP was an independent contractor.
- Pusey appealed the trial court’s decision to the Seventh District Court of Appeals.
- The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a split decision.
- Pusey appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether hiring armed security guards to protect property creates a nondelegable duty such that Greif Brothers can be held liable for the wrongful death of Derrell Pusey caused by the alleged negligence of Bator, an employee of their independent contractor YSP.
Rule of Law
- General Rule: An employer is generally not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor. (Clark v. Southview Hosp. & Family Health Ctr., 68 Ohio St.3d 435)
- Exception: An employer may be liable if the work contracted is inherently dangerous or creates a peculiar risk of harm to others. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427)
Reasoning and Analysis
The court had to assess whether hiring armed security guards constitutes inherently dangerous work or creates a peculiar risk such that it triggers a nondelegable duty on the part of Greif Brothers. The key focus was on whether this type of work required special precautions due to inherent risks associated with armed confrontations.
Greif Brothers argued that hiring armed guards did not pose a peculiar risk of harm beyond general expectations of potential negligence. However, Pusey contended that having armed guards inherently involved special dangers foreseeable by Greif Brothers, particularly when confronting trespassers or suspected thieves.
The Supreme Court of Ohio examined precedents like Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Steinbrock, which established that if work involves recognized risks necessitating special precautions, liability cannot be delegated to an independent contractor. The court found that providing armed security guards likely required such precautions due to foreseeable risks posed by armed confrontations with trespassers or vandals.
Conclusion
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. It held that when an employer hires an independent contractor to provide armed security guards, it triggers the inherently-dangerous-work exception, making the employer potentially liable for resulting injuries from the contractor’s negligence.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Cook concurred in judgment only but disagreed with characterizing security work as inherently dangerous as a matter of law. He emphasized that whether hiring armed guards constituted inherently dangerous work should be determined by the trier of fact based on specific circumstances rather than as a blanket rule.
Key Takeaways
- An employer is generally not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor.
- There is an exception if the work contracted is inherently dangerous or creates a peculiar risk of harm to others.
- The court determined that hiring armed security guards involves special risks and requires special precautions.
- The inherently-dangerous-work exception can trigger employer liability even when using independent contractors.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What determines whether a task is inherently dangerous in legal terms?
In the legal context, a task is deemed inherently dangerous when it carries a high risk of harm even when reasonable care is taken. This includes activities where the nature of the work presents a foreseeable risk to those in the vicinity.
- For example: Demolition of buildings is considered inherently dangerous because it poses a significant risk of injury to individuals nearby, regardless of safety measures.
How do courts establish vicarious liability for employers when independent contractors are involved?
Courts establish vicarious liability for employers by determining if they retained control over the manner in which contractors performed their duties, or if the work was inherently dangerous enough to create a nondelegable duty, obligating the employer to ensure appropriate precautions were taken.
- For example: A construction company may be held liable if it fails to enforce safety protocols for crane operations managed by an independent contractor, leading to an accident.
References
Was this case brief helpful?