Boroughs v. Joiner
1976 Ala. LEXIS 1645, 337 So. 2d 340 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner who hires an independent contractor to perform an inherently dangerous activity, such as aerial crop dusting, has a nondelegable duty to ensure reasonable precautions are taken and may be held liable for damages resulting from the contractor's failure to do so.
Facts:
- The Boroughs owned property which included a fish pond used for recreation, built in 1965.
- Leo Joiner owned crops on land in the immediate vicinity of the Boroughs' pond.
- On July 26, 1973, Joiner employed J.F. Carter, an independent contractor, to apply pesticide to his crops via aircraft.
- The pesticide used, Endrin, is an intrinsically dangerous substance highly toxic to aquatic life, and it has a tendency to drift when applied from the air.
- On or about July 27, 1973, large numbers of fish in the Boroughs' pond began dying.
- Eventually all fish in the pond died, and scientific tests established the cause was Endrin poisoning from the spraying operation on Joiner's land.
- The pesticide had drifted from Joiner's property onto the Boroughs' property and into their fish pond, contaminating it.
Procedural Posture:
- The Boroughs (plaintiffs) brought an action against Leo Joiner (defendant) in the trial court.
- The complaint stated that Joiner had hired an independent contractor, J.F. Carter, to perform the aerial pesticide spraying.
- Joiner filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing he was not liable for the acts of an independent contractor.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Joiner and dismissed the case.
- The Boroughs (appellants) appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to this court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a landowner who hires an independent contractor to perform aerial pesticide application, an inherently dangerous activity, liable for damages caused to an adjacent property owner by the independent contractor's work?
Opinions:
Majority - Unspecified
Yes. A landowner cannot insulate himself from liability for damages caused by an independent contractor when the work performed is inherently dangerous. While the general rule is that one is not responsible for the negligent acts of an independent contractor, an exception exists for activities that are intrinsically dangerous. The court defines an intrinsic danger as one that inheres in the performance of the contract and results directly from the work itself, not from the contractor's collateral negligence. Citing the Restatement of Torts 2d and legislative acts recognizing the dangers of pesticides, the court holds that aerial application of insecticides is an inherently dangerous activity. This classification imposes a nondelegable duty on the landowner to ensure that proper precautions are taken to prevent harm to third parties. The court explicitly rejects a strict liability standard, instead establishing that the landowner's liability is based on a test of reasonableness and failure to exercise due care.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes in Alabama that aerial pesticide application is an 'inherently dangerous activity,' creating a significant exception to the general rule of non-liability for the actions of independent contractors. By imposing a nondelegable duty on landowners, the court prevents them from outsourcing high-risk activities to avoid responsibility for potential harm to neighbors. However, by choosing a negligence-based 'reasonableness' standard over strict liability, the court strikes a balance, ensuring that landowners are not absolute insurers but are held accountable for failing to ensure proper precautions are taken during such hazardous work. This precedent requires landowners to be more vigilant in supervising and selecting contractors for high-risk tasks.
