Robinson v. Jiffy Executive Limousine Co.
1993 WL 339249, 4 F.3d 237 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey law, a principal who hires an independent contractor is not liable for that contractor's negligence merely because the contractor is financially irresponsible or uninsured. The 'incompetent contractor' exception to the general rule of nonliability applies to a contractor's lack of skill or physical fitness, not their financial status.
Facts:
- Showboat casino hired an independent contractor limousine service to transport a patron, Augusto Jorge, from the Philadelphia airport.
- The limousine driver, Richard DeCecco, had a history of heart disease.
- The evening before the fatal trip, DeCecco visited an emergency room with chest pains but was misdiagnosed and released.
- On November 29, 1988, while picking up the patron, DeCecco stated he was not feeling well and made a phone call before leaving the airport.
- While driving on the New Jersey side of the Walt Whitman Bridge, DeCecco suffered a fatal heart attack.
- His limousine swerved into oncoming traffic and collided head-on with a car driven by Raymond Robinson, killing both men.
- A subsequent investigation revealed that the limousine service was uninsured and not registered with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).
Procedural Posture:
- The estate of Raymond Robinson filed a diversity action suit against Showboat casino in federal district court.
- Showboat moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable for the actions of its independent contractor.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Showboat.
- The district court entered a final judgment dismissing the case against Showboat.
- Robinson's estate, the appellant, appealed the 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:
Does New Jersey law impose vicarious liability on a principal for the negligence of an independent contractor based solely on the contractor's financial incompetence, such as being uninsured?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansmann, Circuit Judge
No, New Jersey law does not impose liability on a principal for the negligence of an independent contractor based solely on the contractor's financial incompetence. While this court previously held in Becker v. Interstate Properties that financial irresponsibility could fall under the 'incompetent contractor' exception, subsequent decisions by New Jersey's intermediate appellate courts in Cassano v. Aschoff and Miltz v. Borroughs-Shelving have explicitly rejected that expansion. As a federal court applying state law, this court is persuaded by these more recent state court decisions and predicts the New Jersey Supreme Court would not adopt the novel liability standard from Becker. Policy considerations also weigh against imposing a duty on principals to investigate the financial status of every independent contractor, as it would create uncertainty and prohibitive burdens. The court also found insufficient evidence to support direct negligence, as there was no proof Showboat knew of the driver's physical condition, and violating internal hiring criteria or failing to check ICC registration does not create a legal standard for negligence.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the application of the Erie doctrine, where a federal court's own precedent on state law (Becker) is effectively overruled by subsequent, contrary decisions from that state's intermediate appellate courts. It clarifies that in New Jersey, the 'incompetent contractor' exception is limited to a contractor's technical skill and fitness for the job, not their financial solvency. This holding prevents a significant expansion of vicarious liability, reinforcing the traditional common law rule that principals are generally not liable for the torts of their independent contractors and placing the risk of a contractor's insolvency on the injured third party rather than the hiring entity.
