Issue: If a contractor is liable for the negligent actions of an employee or an independent contractor, does that preclude summary judgment?
| Area of Law: | Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Contractor's liability; Negligent acts of employee; Summary judgment |
| Jurisdiction: | Ohio |
| Cited Cases: | None |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
The question whether a contractor is liable for the negligent actions of an employee or an independent contractor is a question of fact that precludes summary judgment. Snodgrass v. Cleveland Co-op. Coal Co., 31 Ohio App. 470 (1929).
Ohio law is well settled that a principal or employer faces vicarious liability for the negligence of its agent or employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
In order to establish liability under respondeat superior, the plaintiff must show that there was a master-servant, principal-agent, or employment relationship and that the servant, agent or employee committed a tortious act in the scope of the agency or the employment relationship. Bostic v. Connor, 37 Ohio St. 3d 144, 145 (1988). Accord Baird v. Sickler, 69 Ohio St. 2d 652 (1982). Conversely, a principal is not responsible for the tortious conduct of an independent contractor. Bostic, 37 Ohio St. 3d at 146.
To determine whether an employment or independent contractor relationship exists, the key inquiry is who had the right of control over the manner of performing the work. Id. If the employer reserves in itself the right to control the manner of doing the work, the parties have created a master and servant relationship. Id. If the right to control the means of doing the work is left to the hired party, who incurs responsibility to the employer only for the result, the relationship is an independent contractor relationship. Id.
Control may […]
margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:widow-orphan’>