Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.
990 S. W. 2d 126, 1999 WL 137703, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 315 (1999)
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 has a nondelegable duty to ensure special precautions are taken and can be held vicariously liable for injuries caused by the contractor’s failure to address the activity's peculiar risks.
Facts:
- V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc. ('V.P. Fair') organized an annual multi-day fair in St. Louis and contracted with Northstar Entertainment, Inc. ('Northstar') to provide a bungee jumping attraction in 1998.
- On July 5, 1998, Loren Martin Hatch purchased a ticket for the bungee jump, which was to be the first of the day.
- Hatch signed a 'Release and Waiver of Liability and Indemnity Agreement' written by Northstar.
- A Northstar employee placed a harness on Hatch and fastened the bungee cord to the harness.
- A crane lifted Hatch and Northstar's jumpmaster, Paul Murray, 170 feet up in a bungee cage.
- Murray instructed Hatch that he was safe to jump, but no one had attached the bungee cord to the crane.
- When Hatch jumped, he plunged 170 feet to an airbag on the ground, sustaining serious injuries to his back, legs, and shoulders.
- Northstar's crew had failed to follow multiple safety procedures in its own manual, including performing a daily equipment inspection and conducting a test jump before opening to the public.
Procedural Posture:
- Loren Martin Hatch sued V.P. Fair and Northstar in a Missouri trial court on several counts, including premises liability and recklessness.
- Prior to trial, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on Hatch's joint venture claims.
- The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Northstar on Hatch's negligence claim, holding it was barred by a release Hatch had signed.
- The claims for premises liability against V.P. Fair (under the inherently dangerous activity theory) and recklessness against Northstar proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict for Hatch, awarding $5,000,000 and finding V.P. Fair vicariously liable and Northstar liable for recklessness.
- Following the verdict, the trial court granted V.P. Fair’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), overturning the jury's finding against V.P. Fair.
- Hatch appealed the trial court's grant of the JNOV and the earlier summary judgment rulings to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
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 the inherently dangerous activity exception to landowner non-liability apply when an independent contractor’s failure to take a basic safety precaution, like attaching a bungee cord, results in injury to a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Dowd, J.
Yes. A landowner is vicariously liable under the inherently dangerous activity exception when an injury results from the contractor's failure to take precautions against a risk the landowner should have contemplated. The court reasoned that the determination of whether an activity is 'inherently dangerous' is ultimately a question of fact for the jury. It rejected the prior 'dicta' that an activity is not inherently dangerous if it can be performed safely, adopting the principle from Ballinger v. Gascosage Electric Cooperative that the 'essence of inherent danger... is the need for special precaution.' The court also determined that Northstar's failure to attach the cord was not 'collateral negligence.' Collateral negligence is unusual, abnormal, or foreign to the normal risks of the work. Here, the risk of a fall due to the cord's failure or improper attachment is a peculiar and contemplated risk inherent to bungee jumping from a great height, not a collateral one. Therefore, V.P. Fair should have contemplated this risk and had a nondelegable duty to ensure precautions were taken, making the jury's verdict against it legally sound.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and clarifies Missouri's 'inherently dangerous activity' doctrine, establishing that the ultimate determination is a question of fact for the jury. By rejecting the 'can be done safely' test, the court broadened the potential for landowner liability, focusing instead on whether an activity requires special precautions to be safe. Furthermore, the court's narrow interpretation of 'collateral negligence' means that landowners cannot easily escape liability for a contractor's failures that are directly related to the central, obvious risks of the contracted work. This precedent makes it more difficult for landowners to insulate themselves from liability simply by hiring an independent contractor for high-risk activities open to the public.
Unlock the full brief for Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.