Becker v. Interstate Properties
569 F.2d 1203 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's duty to hire a competent independent contractor includes a duty to ensure the contractor is financially responsible or carries adequate liability insurance. An employer may be held liable for the negligence of a financially irresponsible subcontractor if the failure to ensure financial responsibility was unreasonable in light of industry standards and foreseeable risks.
Facts:
- I. P. Construction Corp. (the developer) was the owner and general contractor for a $1.5 million shopping center project.
- I. P. Construction hired Wood-Pine Corp. to perform paving work for the project.
- The contract between I. P. Construction and Wood-Pine required I. P.'s written approval for any subcontracts.
- I. P. Construction knew or should have known that Wood-Pine would need to hire subcontractors for trucking.
- Wood-Pine hired Windsor Contracting Corp. as a sub-subcontractor to provide trucks.
- On August 31, 1972, Gary Becker, a 19-year-old employee of Wood-Pine, was severely injured when a truck operated by a Windsor employee drove over his pelvis.
- Windsor Contracting Corp. was minimally capitalized and carried only $10,000 in automobile liability insurance, whereas the standard coverage in the construction industry was up to $250,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Becker filed a diversity action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against I. P. Construction Corp. (the developer), among others.
- Becker alleged that I. P. Construction was liable for his injuries because it had breached its duty by permitting the hiring of a financially irresponsible subcontractor, Windsor Contracting Corp.
- I. P. Construction Corp. filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for I. P. Construction, holding that under New Jersey law, an employer is not liable for the torts of an independent subcontractor based on the subcontractor's financial status.
- Becker, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New Jersey law, does a general contractor's duty to select a competent independent contractor include a duty to ensure the contractor is financially responsible, thereby making the general contractor liable for the negligence of an underinsured subcontractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Adams, Circuit Judge
Yes. The duty to hire a competent independent contractor includes a duty to ensure the contractor is financially responsible, and a developer can be held liable for failing to do so. Predicting New Jersey law, the court determined that the state's tort principles would support extending liability to an employer who hires a financially irresponsible contractor. The court's reasoning rests on three policy considerations: 1) Loss Spreading: The developer, as a substantial commercial enterprise, is in a better position than the victim to bear and distribute the costs of an accident through insurance, which is a normal business expense. 2) Risk Control: While a developer may not control a subcontractor's day-to-day work, it is in the best position to control the risk of financial irresponsibility by requiring adequate insurance coverage, a common industry practice. 3) Allocating Costs to Beneficiaries: The developer benefits from the construction activity and should bear the costs of the risks created, including the risk of hiring an underinsured subcontractor to potentially lower costs. The court heavily relied on dictum from the New Jersey Supreme Court case Majestic Realty, which suggested that, as a matter of distributive justice, the loss from a financially irresponsible contractor should fall on the party that hired them.
Dissenting - Hunter, Circuit Judge
No. A general contractor's duty to hire a competent contractor should not be extended to include ensuring financial responsibility. The majority creates a new tort duty not recognized in any jurisdiction, based on non-binding dictum from Majestic Realty that New Jersey courts have not adopted in eighteen years. The New Jersey legislature has already addressed contractor financial responsibility by statute, requiring general contractors to cover workers' compensation for uninsured subcontractors, suggesting the legislature, not the courts, should define such duties. This new rule is also problematic because it creates an imprecise standard of liability based on a defendant's financial status, which is unprecedented in New Jersey tort law, and could unfairly hinder the ability of new, less-capitalized contractors to find work.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant, albeit predictive, expansion of employer liability for the torts of independent contractors. It redefines the concept of a 'competent' contractor to include not just technical skill but also financial solvency, aligning with modern tort law's policy goals of loss-spreading and victim compensation. By grounding liability in the failure to adhere to industry standards for insurance, the case imposes a new due diligence requirement on sophisticated commercial actors like developers. This creates a powerful incentive for general contractors to vet subcontractors' insurance coverage, effectively using tort law to enforce private risk management practices within an industry.
Unlock the full brief for Becker v. Interstate Properties