Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc.
764 N.W.2d 474 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota law, a primary contractor who owes a contractual duty to a client cannot delegate that duty to a subcontractor; therefore, the primary contractor is vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligence of its subcontractor.
Facts:
- In 1999, after a small fire, Supreme Pork, Inc. contracted with Master Blaster, Inc. to install a new power washer in its pig farrowing facility.
- The project required redesigning the venting system and installing a new chimney, work Master Blaster did not perform itself.
- Master Blaster recommended Pipestone Plumbing and Heating (PP&H) for the venting and chimney work and contacted them on Supreme Pork's behalf.
- PP&H provided a price quote to Master Blaster, which Master Blaster then included, along with an additional fee, in its own quote and bill to Supreme Pork.
- In March 2002, a second, more significant fire ignited near the exhaust chimney installed by PP&H.
- This fire caused substantial damage to Supreme Pork’s facilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Supreme Pork, Inc. sued Master Blaster, Inc. in a state trial court for damages resulting from a fire.
- Before the jury trial, the trial court determined that Minnesota law applied.
- During the trial, the court made several evidentiary rulings that Master Blaster later challenged.
- The trial court determined as a matter of law that Master Blaster was vicariously liable for PP&H's negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Supreme Pork, finding Master Blaster liable for damages.
- Master Blaster (appellant) appealed the trial court's legal and evidentiary rulings to the Supreme Court of South Dakota, and Supreme Pork (appellee) responded.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Minnesota law, is a primary contractor who owes a contractual duty to a client vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent subcontractor it hires to perform part of the work?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbertson, Chief Justice
Yes. A primary contractor is liable for its subcontractor’s negligence. The court held that under established Minnesota law, when a person owes a contractual duty to another, the law imposes a further non-delegable duty to act with due care in the performance of that contract. While performance can be delegated to a subcontractor, the primary contractor is not relieved of its duty to act with due care and is therefore subject to vicarious liability for damages resulting from the subcontractor's negligence. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting testimony about non-causal code violations and a prior fire involving the subcontractor, as this evidence was relevant to show the subcontractor's knowledge of safety standards and was not unfairly prejudicial.
Dissenting - Sabers, Retired Justice
The dissent does not directly address the vicarious liability issue but argues for reversal based on evidentiary errors. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence of a prior fire and unrelated code violations. This evidence served only as improper propensity evidence to show that the subcontractor did 'sloppy work,' which is strictly prohibited. Because this evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative and deprived Master Blaster of a fair trial, the case should be reversed and remanded.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the well-established 'non-delegable duty' doctrine, which serves as a major exception to the general rule that a principal is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor. The decision highlights that a primary contractor cannot insulate itself from liability by simply outsourcing work to a third party, particularly when it has a direct contractual obligation to the client. This holding ensures that the party with the primary contractual relationship remains accountable for the project's safe and competent completion, providing a clear line of recourse for clients harmed by a subcontractor's negligence.
