Castellanos v. Tommy John, LLC
321 P.3d 218, 2014 UT App 48, 755 Utah Adv. Rep. 16 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer of an independent contractor security company is not vicariously liable for the intentional torts of the contractor's employees unless the employer retains control over the work, the work is inherently dangerous, or the employer knows or has reason to know the contractor's employees are likely to commit such torts.
Facts:
- Tommy John, LLC, owned and operated a bar and restaurant.
- Tommy John entered into a contract with Thor Staffing to provide security services at the establishment.
- The agreement identified Thor Staffing as an independent contractor responsible for its own methods and stated that Tommy John would not provide guidance or training to the guards.
- On August 14, 2009, Josue Castellanos was at Tommy John's establishment.
- Castellanos was involved in a physical altercation with security guards employed by Thor Staffing.
- During the altercation, Castellanos was forcibly removed from the establishment and suffered physical and emotional injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Josue Castellanos filed a lawsuit against Tommy John, LLC in the district court (trial court).
- Castellanos's complaint alleged claims for vicarious liability based on the intentional torts of assault, battery, and false imprisonment, and for direct liability based on negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of the individual security guards.
- Tommy John filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor's employees.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Tommy John on all claims.
- Josue Castellanos (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate appellate 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 business owner vicariously liable for the intentional torts committed by the employees of an independent contractor hired to provide security services?
Opinions:
Majority - McHugh, Judge
No. A business owner is generally not vicariously liable for the intentional torts committed by the employees of an independent contractor hired for security. The court affirmed summary judgment for Tommy John because none of the exceptions to the general rule of nonliability for independent contractors applied. The court reasoned that Tommy John did not retain control over the security work, as it did not direct the means and methods by which Thor Staffing's employees performed their duties. The court also held that providing security services is not an 'inherently dangerous' activity, as its purpose is to reduce risk, not create it, and the risk of intentional torts by guards is not inherent in the work itself. Finally, the court found no breach of a nondelegable duty, explaining that a business owner's duty to keep premises safe does not extend to liability for an independent contractor's intentional torts unless the owner knew or had reason to know such acts were likely to occur, which Castellanos failed to show. The separate claim for negligent hiring of the individual guards failed because Tommy John only hired the security company, Thor Staffing, not the guards themselves.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal protection afforded to businesses in Utah that hire independent contractors for specialized services like security. It clarifies that, absent specific circumstances like retained control or prior knowledge of a contractor's dangerous propensities, the liability for the contractor's employees' actions rests with the contractor. The ruling narrowly construes the 'inherently dangerous' and 'nondelegable duty' exceptions, preventing their application to standard security services and thereby avoiding a major expansion of premises liability. This encourages businesses to hire professional, insured security firms by limiting their vicarious liability, while also underscoring the critical importance of precise pleading for plaintiffs, as the negligent hiring claim failed due to targeting the wrong employment relationship.
