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 Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' handyman, who was hired to perform odd jobs, poisoned their dogs with elk meat laced with gopher bait. The poisoning occurred during an ongoing dispute over easement rights on the Defendants' property. The handyman had a criminal history, and the Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants were negligent in hiring him and should be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (paras 1, 5-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, March 14, 2008: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding no employer-employee relationship between the Defendants and the handyman and no connection between the handyman's actions and his work for the Defendants. The court also awarded costs to the Defendants (paras 8, 10, 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the district court erred in finding no causal connection between the poisoning and the handyman's relationship with the Defendants, in granting summary judgment on the negligent hiring claim, and in concluding there was no issue of fact regarding the handyman's apparent authority as an employee (paras 1, 8).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the handyman was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that his actions were outside the scope of any duties he performed for them. They also argued that the Plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence to rebut their prima facie case (paras 8, 10, 12).
Legal Issues
- Was the handyman an employee of the Defendants or an independent contractor?
- Was there a sufficient nexus between the handyman's actions and his work for the Defendants to hold them liable under respondeat superior?
- Did the district court err in awarding costs to the Defendants?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the issue of costs for adjustment (paras 1, 12, 13).
Reasons
Per Robles J. (Castillo and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Employer-Employee Relationship: The court applied the Restatement (Second) of Agency factors and concluded that the handyman was an independent contractor. The Defendants did not control the handyman's work, paid him by the job, and did not provide tools or benefits. The Plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence to rebut this conclusion (paras 10-12).
Scope of Employment: Even if the handyman were an employee, his actions were not connected to his work for the Defendants. The poisoning of the Plaintiffs' dogs was unrelated to the handyman's duties, and there was no evidence of a nexus between his actions and his employment (paras 12-13).
Negligent Hiring and Apparent Authority: The court found no evidence that the Defendants' hiring of the handyman or his apparent authority contributed to the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs. Without a connection between the handyman's work and the injury, these claims could not succeed (paras 12-13).
Costs: The court reviewed the district court's award of costs. It found that jury fees were improperly awarded due to a late filing by the Defendants and reduced the amount recoverable for in-house copying. However, it upheld the award of deposition costs and other expenses deemed reasonably necessary for the litigation (paras 13-14).
The court affirmed the summary judgment and remanded the issue of costs for adjustment (paras 12-14).