Cruz v. Lopez
301 Neb. 531 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general contractor is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor's employee, even when both entities are registered motor carriers, unless a common-law employer-employee relationship exists, the general contractor maintains substantial control over the specific injury-causing work, a nondelegable duty is breached, or an applicable statutory scheme expressly creates a statutory employee relationship under the specific facts.
Facts:
- On June 7, 2012, Hazel N. Cruz, a minor child, was injured in an automobile accident caused by Lyle J. Carman.
- At the time of the accident, Carman was an employee of Lopez Trucking, driving a dump truck owned by Carlos J. Lopez, doing business as Lopez Trucking.
- Testing conducted after the accident revealed that Carman was operating his vehicle under the influence of amphetamine and methamphetamine.
- Lopez Trucking had an oral agreement with Werner Construction, Inc. (Werner), a general contractor, to haul construction debris from the I-80 Air Park West Junction US-77 Project.
- Carman had delivered his last load for the day and was returning the truck to Lopez's designated parking location for the night when the accident occurred.
- Lopez Trucking possessed its own U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) motor carrier identification number and was later found in violation of federal regulations requiring a random controlled substances and alcohol testing program for its employees.
- Werner Construction, Inc. was also a registered commercial motor carrier with its own DOT number.
- Werner did not direct Carman's specific route, provide the truck, or pay Carman; Lopez Trucking paid Carman, withheld taxes, and provided workers' compensation insurance.
Procedural Posture:
- Edgar Cruz, as father and next friend of Hazel N. Cruz, sued Lyle J. Carman for negligence and Carlos J. Lopez (doing business as Lopez Trucking) on a theory of imputed liability as Carman's employer.
- Cruz also joined Werner Construction, Inc., alleging Werner was negligent in failing to ensure Carman was drug-free or was vicariously liable as Carman's 'statutory employee' or for exercising complete control over the vehicle.
- Werner Construction, Inc. denied liability and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court for Lancaster County granted Werner's motion for summary judgment, finding that Werner had not breached any duty, Lopez Trucking was an independent contractor, Lopez Trucking (not Werner) was Carman's motor carrier/employer under the relevant regulations, and no common-law exceptions for vicarious liability applied.
- Cruz subsequently moved for summary judgment against Lopez and Carman, which the district court granted.
- Cruz appealed the order of summary judgment in favor of Werner to the Nebraska Supreme 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:
Does a general contractor, who is also a registered motor carrier, owe a duty of care or bear vicarious liability for the negligence of an employee of an independent contractor, also a registered motor carrier, based on common-law employment, statutory employee provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations adopted by state law, or recognized common-law exceptions to nonliability for independent contractors?
Opinions:
Majority - Freudenberg, J.
No, a general contractor, even if also a registered motor carrier, is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor's employee when common-law employment elements are absent, the general contractor lacked substantial control over the injury-causing work, no nondelegable duty was breached, and the relevant statutory scheme for intrastate motor carriers does not create a "statutory employee" relationship under these specific facts. The court first found that a common-law employer-employee relationship between Werner and Carman did not exist. Applying the 10 factors for distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor, the court determined that the facts overwhelmingly indicated Carman was Lopez Trucking's employee, noting that Werner did not control Carman's means and methods of work, supply equipment, or directly pay him, and Lopez Trucking was solely responsible for Carman's employment conditions. Second, the court addressed the common-law exceptions to a general contractor's nonliability for an independent contractor's negligence. It found Werner did not retain substantial control over the work that caused the injury (Carman's impaired driving), as Werner's control was limited to the 'end product' of hauling and general scheduling, not the specific means and methods like hiring or drug testing. The court emphasized that general contractual language requiring compliance with laws does not establish vicarious liability. Furthermore, Cruz presented no evidence that the accident occurred on premises Werner controlled, nor did he establish a specific statutory duty on Werner to drug test Lopez Trucking's employees. The court also rejected the argument that driving an empty dump truck constituted a 'special risk or danger,' reiterating that operating motor vehicles is not inherently dangerous and the risk of an impaired driver is an 'ordinary' risk that an employer of an independent contractor is justified in presuming the contractor will avoid. Third, the court analyzed whether Carman was Werner's 'statutory employee' under Nebraska's adopted Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The court clarified that the relevant statutory definitions of 'employee' ('individual, other than an employer') and 'employer' do not apply to the scenario where the independent contractor itself is a registered motor carrier (Lopez Trucking) and an employer of the negligent driver. The regulations were designed to address situations where an authorized carrier leases from an unregistered or underinsured owner-operator, not for contracts between two distinct, regulated motor carriers operating under their own DOT numbers. To hold Werner liable in this context would lead to absurd results, making Werner responsible for an employee it did not hire or control regarding safety records and testing.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of vicarious liability for general contractors engaging independent contractors, particularly within the heavily regulated commercial motor carrier industry. It firmly rejects the imposition of liability where the general contractor lacks direct, substantial control over the specific aspect of the work that caused the injury and where both parties are distinct, regulated entities. The decision provides crucial guidance on the narrow interpretation of common-law exceptions to nonliability and underscores that statutory 'employee' definitions in motor carrier regulations apply only to the specific scenarios they were designed to address, not broadly to all contractual relationships between motor carriers. This ruling helps maintain the independent contractor relationship's integrity, preventing general contractors from being held responsible for the internal employment practices of their independent subcontractors who operate under their own regulatory authority.
