August 8, 2024
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently recognized tort claims against companies for negligent selection of contractors. The Supreme Court recognized a relation between negligent selection torts and a common law right in the state. Therefore, the law could hold employers responsible for failing to screen their independent contractors adequately.
This case concerned a crash between two drivers hauling sugar beets. According to the claims, one driver had a poor driving record and a suspended driver’s license. The collision occurred because this driver crossed into the opposing lane and seriously hurt the other. As such, the injured driver sued the other and the employer.
The case described the employer as an independent contractor providing services to another company. It also revealed the company’s failures to examine the driver’s driving record, interview the driver, conduct a background check, or perform other background screenings. As a result, the plaintiff sued the company that hired the independent contractor.
The plaintiff accused the company of negligently hiring the independent contractor. For example, the company did not conduct a background check on the contractor’s employees before hiring them. It also failed to inquire about the contractor’s screening process before sending employees to haul the sugar beets.
Though the suit against the driver and his employer settled, the suit against the company that hired the independent contractor did not. Instead, the defendant argued for a summary judgment. The defendant claimed Minnesota did not recognize claims for negligently selecting independent contractors. As such, if the company did so, Minnesota would not recognize it as negligent in its selection.
A district court granted the summary judgment based on this argument. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the state recognizes claims for negligent independent contractor selection. The Supreme Court explained that a claimant must establish “(1) the existence of a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) that the breach of the duty was a proximate cause of the injury.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that courts must consider individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining the level of care to exercise. When the work is more dangerous or specialized, companies must take greater care when selecting an independent contractor. However, the Supreme Court decided that specializing in driving did not equate to other specialized skills.
One example provided compared driving to plumbing. The Supreme Court agreed that the defendant had no reason to believe the contractor could not handle the work. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the independent contractor maintained a damaging reputation.
Finally, the Supreme Court noted that the defendant had successfully hired this independent contractor without issue in the past. These findings ended with the Supreme Court agreeing with the district court for this specific case. As such, it approved the decision to grant the defendant a summary judgment.