Opinion ID: 1366771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Court's Decision to Dismiss Jacobsen

Text: The Hannemans also contend that the district court erred in dismissing their action against Jacobsen. The contention is based upon Jacobsen's alleged vicarious liability for Downer's negligent survey under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, the doctrine does not apply where, as here, there is no relationship of superior and subordinate, or, as it is generally expressed, of master and servant, in which the latter is subject to the control of the former. The responsibility is placed where the power exists. Wells, Inc. v. Shoemake, 64 Nev. 57, 64, 177 P.2d 451, 455 (1947). Downer was an independent contractor over whom Jacobsen exercised no control. Moreover, the precision and expertise with which surveyors must perform their work does not lend itself to control by laypersons. As one author noted: The surveyor is isolated in his calling and therein lies his responsibility.... Dishonesty in ordinary business life cannot long be hid and errors in accounts quickly come to light, but the false or faulty survey may pass unchallenged through the years, for few but a surveyor himself are qualified to judge it. Walter G. Robillard and Lane J. Bouman, Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 2.04, p. 30 (6th ed. 1992) (quoting A.C. Mulford, Boundaries and Landmarks 88, 89 (1912)). Additionally, NRS 625.330(3) makes it unlawful for a surveyor to sign, stamp or seal any plat, map, report or document relating to land surveying which the surveyor himself did not prepare or for which he did not have responsible charge of the work. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court's finding that Downer acted as an independent contractor whose negligence cannot be imputed to Jacobsen. The action against Jacobsen was properly dismissed by the district court.