The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a cause of action exists under Minnesota common law for negligent selection of an independent contractor in Alonzo, et al v. Menholt, et al, No. A22-1796 (Minn. July 10, 2024). The case arose after a sugar beet truck being driven by Albert Lopez crossed the centerline and struck another sugar beet truck being driven by Pedro Alonzo. Lopez was an employee of Braaten Farms (“Braaten”). Braaten had been hired as an independent contractor by Menholt Farms (“Menholt”) to assist Menholt during the busy harvest season.
After the accident, it was determined that Lopez had a suspended license, multiple DUI convictions, and recent speeding infractions. Braaten was not aware of this and had not taken any steps to review Lopez’s driving record or run a background check. Menholt never asked Braaten how it hired or screened the employees who hauled its sugar beets.
Alonzo and his wife sued Menholt for negligent selection of an independent contractor (Mr. Alonzo passed away during the course of the appeals in this case). The district court found that such a claim was viable under Minnesota law but dismissed the case on summary judgment because Menholt had no obligation or duty to inquire into Braaten’s hiring practices or Lopez’s qualifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal because it held the cause of action did not exist, but if it did, it agreed that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Menholt had a duty to inquire. After granting review, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota recognizes the tort of negligent selection of an independent contractor. The six justices were evenly divided, however, on the question of whether there was a disputed fact as to whether Menholt owed a duty to inquire under these particular circumstances and, as a result, the Court of Appeals’ position on that question stood and dismissal of the claim was affirmed.
The Minnesota Supreme Court looked to a national treatise, the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 411 to frame the elements of this claim. The Restatement defines the tort as follows:
A principal is subject to liability for physical harm to third persons caused by their failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a careful and competent contractor (a) to do work which will involve risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or (b) to perform any duty which the principal owes to third persons.
The Court, in Alonzo, then went on to define the cause of action under Minnesota law, stating that in order to prevail, “a claimant must establish that the principal (1) breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting a competent and reasonable contractor and (2) that this breach of duty caused the claimant’s physical harm.” Whether there is a duty and the extent of that duty is fact-dependent, but the Court held that certain factors are important, specifically (1) the danger to which others will be exposed if the contractor’s work is not properly done, and (2) the character of the work to be done, i.e., whether the work lies within the competence of the average person or requires special skills or training.
The holding in Alonzo suggests that businesses in Minnesota should take steps to vet potential contractors before engaging them, especially if the project involves driving or any potentially dangerous activity. It may also be advisable to include language in agreements for contractors to affirm that they screen employees and perform background checks, that they have enacted other safety protocols, and that they carry insurance. The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision means there is one more way for Minnesota businesses to be sued. Most other states have recognized this cause of action, however, and the fact that this particular claim was dismissed on summary judgment suggests that the duty element of the tort will be applied narrowly to applicable facts.
If you have questions about this case or about any other independent contractor or employment law issues, please reach out to Attorneys John Ella and Pat Rooney.
Related Attorneys
