Stout v. Warren
290 P.3d 972, 176 Wash. 2d 263 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A principal who hires an independent contractor for an activity involving a peculiar risk, such as fugitive apprehension, is vicariously liable for the contractor's negligence that harms a third party. This liability extends to the fugitive defendant, as the narrow exception barring recovery for employees of the contractor does not apply to non-employee third parties.
Facts:
- In 2002, Larry Stout was charged with felonies, and CJ Johnson Bail Bonds posted his $50,000 bail bond.
- Stout failed to appear for two court hearings, triggering a bench warrant for his arrest.
- CJ Johnson hired an independent contractor, Michael Golden (doing business as CCSR), to apprehend Stout.
- Golden, in turn, subcontracted the job to Carl Warren.
- On July 16, 2002, Warren pursued Stout in a pickup truck down a gravel roadway.
- Warren rammed his truck into the back of Stout's car at high speed, causing Stout's car to crash into a tree.
- As a result of the crash, Stout was severely injured and one of his legs had to be amputated.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry Stout filed a complaint for damages against Carl Warren, Michael Golden, and CJ Johnson in a Washington trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CJ Johnson, ruling that fugitive recovery is not an 'inherently dangerous' occupation and CJ Johnson was therefore not vicariously liable.
- The trial court dismissed Stout's case against CJ Johnson.
- Stout, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, but on the different ground that Stout, as a person who 'triggered and knowingly participated' in the dangerous activity, could not invoke the vicarious liability doctrine.
- Stout petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for discretionary review, which was granted.
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 bail bond company vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for physical harm caused by its independent contractor to the fugitive defendant during apprehension?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
Yes. A bail bond company is subject to vicarious liability because fugitive defendant apprehension is an activity that poses a peculiar risk of physical harm. The court determined that while fugitive apprehension is not an "abnormally dangerous activity" creating strict liability, it does involve a "peculiar risk" of harm that is inherent to the work and different from common risks. The narrow exception to this form of vicarious liability, which bars suits by employees of the independent contractor, does not extend to other third parties. A plaintiff's own culpability, such as being a fugitive, does not act as a complete bar to asserting a vicarious liability claim; rather, it is a matter to be assessed under principles of comparative fault.
Dissenting - Owens, J.
No. The purpose of the peculiar risk exception is not served by applying it to the fugitive defendant himself. The dissent argues that the doctrine exists to protect members of the public who are unaware of and cannot anticipate the special dangers of an activity. Because Stout, as the fugitive, was both aware of the risks inherent in his apprehension and was the cause of the dangerous activity being initiated, he is not the type of person the exception was designed to protect. Therefore, the general rule of nonliability for the acts of independent contractors should apply.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the peculiar risk doctrine in Washington, establishing that fugitive apprehension falls within it. It significantly rejects the creation of a new 'participant' or 'non-innocent party' exception to vicarious liability, preventing the doctrine from being conflated with assumption of risk or contributory negligence. The ruling reinforces that a principal's non-delegable duty for inherently risky activities extends to foreseeable third parties, including the target of the activity. Consequently, bail bond companies face greater exposure to liability and have a stronger incentive to ensure their independent contractors exercise reasonable care.
