What Are US Supreme Court Cases on Independent Contractor Liability?

Question from Bey, What Are US Supreme Court Cases on Independent Contractor Liability?

Answer from AI:

U.S. Supreme Court Authority

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 525 U.S. 68 (1999) – The Court held that an employer is not an “owner or operator” of a contractor’s equipment for purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and therefore the employer is not vicariously liable for the contractor’s negligence. The decision emphasizes that liability attaches only when the employer retains control over the work or the workplace, not merely because the work is performed on the employer’s premises.

Key takeaway: The Supreme Court makes clear that, absent control over the manner in which the work is performed, an employer does not bear responsibility for injuries that an independent contractor suffers while performing the contractor’s own tasks.

California Authority

Statutory Guidance

• California Civil Code § 1719 – A party who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries to the contractor or the contractor’s employees, except when the work is inherently dangerous, the hiring party retains control over the work, or the hiring party fails to provide a safe environment.

Leading State Case

• Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. 3d 440 (1978) – The California Supreme Court affirmed that a principal who engages an independent contractor is not liable for the contractor’s negligence unless the principal exercised control over the contractor’s work or the work involved an inherent risk that the principal could not eliminate. The court reiterated that the independent‑contractor relationship shields the hiring party from ordinary negligence claims arising from the contractor’s own injuries.

Practical Factors Courts Examine

1. Degree of Control – Does the employer dictate how the work is performed, set detailed procedures, or supervise day‑to‑day activities?
2. Inherent Danger of the Work – Is the task so hazardous that the employer has a non‑delegable duty to protect anyone on the site, even contractors?
3. True Independent‑Contractor Status – Courts look at the “right‑to‑control” test, the written agreement, the method of payment, and the extent of integration into the employer’s business.

If the employer’s involvement is limited to specifying the result (e.g., “install the wiring”) rather than the means, liability for the contractor’s injuries is generally avoided.

How This Applies

• Employers should keep contracts clear, stating that the worker is an independent contractor and that the contractor is responsible for its own safety measures.
• Contractors should maintain their own insurance and safety programs, because the hiring party is unlikely to be held liable for injuries the contractor suffers on its own job.

When to Seek Professional Advice

The principles above provide a general framework, but nuances—such as whether a particular job is “inherently dangerous” or whether a contractor is actually an employee under California’s “ABC” test—can change the analysis. For any specific situation, especially where workers’ compensation, OSHA citations, or potential lawsuits are involved, consult a licensed attorney who can evaluate the facts in light of current statutes and case law.

Useful references

• Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 525 U.S. 68 (1999) – full opinion on the Supreme Court website.
• California Civil Code § 1719 (official text) – searchable California statutes.