A property owner contracts with an independent contractor to conduct extensive repairs on a residential building. During the repairs, the contractor negligently fails to secure scaffolding, which falls and injures a pedestrian on the sidewalk below. The pedestrian sues the property owner, claiming that the property owner is liable for the injuries caused by the falling scaffolding. Which of the following provides the BEST rationale for whether or not the property owner can be held liable?
The property owner is liable because they have a nondelegable duty to ensure that work performed on the property does not pose a danger to the public.
The property owner is not liable because they hired an independent contractor, and liability does not arise for the contractor's negligent acts.
The property owner is liable because hiring an independent contractor transfers all liability for any negligent acts to the property owner.
The property owner is not liable because the pedestrian had no direct business relationship with the property owner.
The correct answer highlights that exceptions to the general rule of non-liability for independent contractors arise when the duty involved is nondelegable. A property owner has a nondelegable duty to ensure that work performed does not create unreasonable risks to the public, making them liable even if the work is carried out by an independent contractor. Incorrect answers fail to recognize this specific exception or misapply general principles of vicarious liability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is a nondelegable duty?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of vicarious liability?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does an independent contractor differ from an employee?