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 case arose from a fatal automobile accident on April 22, 2000, involving an eighteen-wheeled truck driven by an employee of Jim's Water Service (JWS), an independent contractor hired by the Defendant to deliver water to its drilling site. The truck rear-ended the Decedent's vehicle, resulting in his death. The driver was found to have marijuana and amphetamines in his system at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff, acting as the Decedent's personal representative, alleged that the Defendant was liable for the accident due to the inherently dangerous nature of the work, negligent selection of JWS, and breach of contractual duties (paras 2, 4-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Miguel County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the Defendant was not liable under the Plaintiff's theories of liability (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant should be held liable because the work performed by JWS was inherently dangerous, the Defendant negligently selected an unsafe contractor, and the Defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing under its contract with JWS (para 2).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the work was not inherently dangerous, that it exercised reasonable care in selecting JWS, and that the Plaintiff's contract theory was unsupported by law or evidence (paras 3, 16, 23).
Legal Issues
- Was the work performed by JWS inherently dangerous, thereby making the Defendant liable for the accident?
- Did the Defendant negligently select JWS as an independent contractor?
- Did the Defendant breach its duty of good faith and fair dealing under its contract with JWS?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (para 25).
Reasons
Per Robinson J. (Bustamante and Fry JJ. concurring):
Inherently Dangerous Activity: The Court held that the operation of an eighteen-wheeled truck to deliver water was not inherently dangerous. The activity was deemed common and familiar to the public, with no evidence suggesting it posed a peculiar or unusual risk of harm. The Court emphasized that the negligence of the driver, rather than the nature of the activity itself, caused the accident. Public policy considerations also weighed against expanding the inherently dangerous activity exception to include such cases (paras 7-15).
Negligent Selection of Contractor: The Court assumed, without deciding, that Section 411 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts applied but found no evidence that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting JWS. The Plaintiff's reliance on a post-accident safety report and industry guidelines was insufficient to establish that the Defendant knew or should have known of JWS's alleged incompetence before the accident (paras 16-22).
Contract Theory: The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing under its contract with JWS. The Plaintiff failed to cite any authority supporting the proposition that such a breach would give rise to liability for the accident (paras 23-24).