This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, a restaurant owner, hired an independent contractor to expand its premises, including the installation of metal bleachers for patrons. Approximately four months after the bleachers were installed, they collapsed, injuring the Plaintiff, a patron. The collapse was caused by the contractor's negligent assembly of the bleachers (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, holding the Defendant vicariously liable for the contractor's negligence and finding a nondelegable duty to maintain safety in controlled areas. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $47,000 in damages (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant was vicariously liable for the contractor's negligence under a nondelegable duty to maintain safe premises. Cited the precedent in Broome v. Byrd to support this position (paras 4, 6).
- Defendant: Contended that liability should be limited to situations where the owner was personally at fault. Argued that the contractor's negligence was "collateral negligence" and sought to compare the negligence of the contractor, the architect, and the City of Albuquerque to reduce its liability (paras 11-12, 17-18).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant, as a premises owner, is vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor under Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 422(b) (para 7).
- Whether the contractor's negligence constituted "collateral negligence" for which the Defendant should not be held liable (para 12).
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the jury to consider the comparative negligence of the architect and the City of Albuquerque (para 17).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings, holding the Defendant liable for the contractor's negligence and rejecting the Defendant's arguments regarding collateral negligence and comparative negligence (para 29).
Reasons
Per Apodaca CJ (Hartz and Flores JJ. concurring):
- The Court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 422(b), holding that a premises owner is liable for unsafe conditions caused by an independent contractor's negligence after the owner resumes possession of the premises. This liability exists even if the owner was not personally at fault (paras 7-8).
- The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the contractor's negligence was "collateral negligence," clarifying that collateral negligence applies only to temporary unsafe conditions during ongoing work, not to defects in the final structure. The contractor's negligent assembly of the bleachers created a latent defect, making the premises unsafe, and was not collateral negligence (paras 12-16).
- The Court upheld the trial court's refusal to allow the jury to consider the comparative negligence of the architect and the City. The architect's negligence, if any, was attributable to the Defendant under the same nondelegable duty. The City's alleged negligence in issuing a permit was deemed passive and minimal compared to the contractor's active negligence, and public policy supported holding the Defendant fully liable (paras 17-28).