Opinion ID: 1174364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: negligence in supervision

Text: In the course of its holding on the negligent selection issue, the court of appeals commented that Western could also be held liable for failure to properly supervise S.T.O.P.'s work. We do not agree and hold that Western had no duty of supervision under the facts of this case. S.T.O.P. was an independent contractor which retained, as the court of appeals pointed out, the sole and exclusive right in all essential respects to control the manner in which the work was to be done and the owner's [Western's] concern was only with the end product or final result. Since S.T. O.P. had exclusive control over the manner of doing the work, Western had no obligation to supervise it. This balance of responsibility is implicit in the employer-independent contractor relationship. In addition, Western did not undertake any independent contractual obligation to supervise S.T.O.P.'s work. One provision in the agreement between Western and S.T. O.P. did provide that Western shall have the right to inspect the premises from time to time during the term of this agreement   . This right of inspection, however, did not impose upon Western a duty of supervision. The Supreme Court of Washington has aptly commented that: The retention of the right to inspect and supervise to insure the proper completion of the contract does not vitiate the independent contractor relationship. Epperly v. City of Seattle, 65 Wash.2d 777, 399 P.2d 591. See also 41 Am.Jur.2d Independent Contractors § 10. Thus, under these circumstances, Western cannot be held liable for a failure to properly supervise S.T.O.P.'s work.