According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was an employee of
an independent contractor that was retained by the property owner to provide
janitorial services. The Plaintiff was
allegedly injured in a slip and fall event on the premises.
The Defendant-owner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on
the basis that it allegedly owned no duty of care to the employee of the independent contractor. The landowner Defendant argued that a
landowner who retains an independent contractor cannot be vicariously liable
for the negligence of an independent contractor or its employees.
However, Judge Nealon denied the Motion for Summary Judgment
under the “retained control” exception to that theory of non-liability. Under the exception, a property owner who
entrusts work to an independent contractor remains subject to liability if its
contract with the independent contractor grants the landowner control over the
manner, method, and operative details of the independent contractor’s
work.
Judge Nealon found that there were issues of fact in this
regard that required the court to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.