Issue: Whether The District Court Erred in Failing to Find that a Corporation Was the Owner of the Premises Acting as Its Own General Contractor, that It Maintained Possession of the Premises, and that It Was Substantially Involved in Overseeing the Construction Given that Defendant Corporation Admitted to Being Substantially Involved in Construction Decisions on a Daily Basis and to Continuously Having One or More Supervisors Onsite Where Plaintiff’s Accident Occurred
| Area of Law: | Construction Law, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | General contractor; Liability for negligence; Accident |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal, Iowa, Nebraska |
| Cited Cases: | 398 N.W.2d 699; 496 N.W.2d 902; 354 N.W.2d 251; 518 N.W.2d 107; 425 N.W.2d 872 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 07/01/2001 |
It is fundamental that actionable negligence exists when a defendant has a legal duty to protect the plaintiff, the defendant fails to discharge that duty, and damage to the plaintiff results from such undischarged duty. Parrish v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 496 N.W.2d 902, 908-09 (Neb. 1993). “Duty” is an obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff, which in negligence cases is the duty “to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in light of the apparent risk.” Id. at 909 (quoting Union Pac. R.R. v. Kaiser Ag. Chem. Co., 425 N.W.2d 872, 881 (Neb. 1988) (quoting Holden v. Urban, 398 N.W.2d 699 (Neb. 1987))). Put differently, in negligence cases a duty is an obligation, to which the law gives recognition and effect, to conform one’s behavior toward another to a particular standard of conduct. Id. (citing Prosser & Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 53, at 356 (5th ed. 1984)). See also Fitzpatrick v. US West, Inc., 518 N.W.2d 107, 113 (Neb. 1994). The question whether a legal duty exists is a question of law. Parrish, 496 N.W.2d at 909.
As a general rule, the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligence. Id. However, Nebraska law is well settled that such an employer faces liability under certain exceptions to the nonliability rule. “[T]he employer of an independent contractor may be […]