You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the employer, Vertical, could be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor, On Guard. On Guard provided security for a parking lot owned by Vertical. Plaintiff was injured when struck by a remote-controlled toy car which was apparently being operated in the parking lot with a security guard’s knowledge:

“Generally, a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . “One of the exceptions to this general rule is the nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe'” … . In such instances, the party ” is vicariously liable for the fault of the independent contractor because a legal duty is imposed on it which cannot be delegated'” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the moving defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding whether On Guard was negligent in performing its security duties, and whether the moving defendants were vicariously liable for On Guard’s negligence based on their nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe… . Pesante v Vertical Indus. Dev. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05854, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR)/INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR)

You might also like
DEFENDANT TOOK A KEY, GOT IN A U-HAUL VAN, SAT FOR TWO MINUTES AND GOT OUT OF THE VAN; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF ITS PROPERTY; GRAND LARCENY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
In a Prohibition Proceeding Brought Under Article 78, Trial Judge’s Mistrial Order Deemed Improper, Retrial Precluded​
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK CROSSING THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT AGAINST A FOSTER CARE AGENCY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT, LOSS OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND EXPENSES FOR THE CHILDREN’S CARE AND TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FRIVOLOUS DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN PROPERTY-INJURY CASE WARRANTED AWARD PURSUANT TO CPLR 8303-a.
THE INSURER IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT MEET ITS HEAVY BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE ITS INSURED’S NON-COOPERATION SUCH THAT THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION’S JOINT REQUEST TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL EVALUATED; ONCE A DEFENDANT IS DEEMED COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THE DECISION WHETHER TO PRESENT AN INSANITY DEFENSE IS THE DEFENDANT’S, NOT THE COURT’S, TO MAKE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT... TRIAL JUDGE PRESSURED DEFENDANT INTO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER DEFENSE COUNSEL...