Opinion ID: 895009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Negligent Activity Theory

Text: Moritz alleged a negligent activity claim solely against GE. Generally, an owner or occupier does not owe a duty to ensure that independent contractors perform their work in a safe manner. [5] But one who retains a right to control the contractor's work may be held liable for negligence in exercising that right. [6] This right to control may be expressed by contract or implied by conduct. [7] In the summary judgment record here, there was no evidence Moritz's duties were governed by a contract. There was some evidence that in practice GE controlled where Moritz could load his truck, such as when it blocked some of his loading options. But there was no evidence it controlled how or where Moritz secured his load for delivery  the truck, straps, and rubber cords he used for that purpose were entirely his own. Citing our opinion in Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison, [8] the court of appeals held that a fact question was created if GE retained the right to control any aspect of Moritz's activities. [9] What we actually said in Lee Lewis (citing the Restatement of Torts and numerous opinions) was that a defendant's duty  is commensurate with the control it retains over the independent contractor's work. [10] Thus, it is not enough to show that the defendant controlled one aspect of Moritz's activities if his injury arose from another. [11] Here, GE's control of where Moritz could load supplies did not dictate where he could secure that load. While some loads undoubtedly must be secured before they are moved an inch, that was not the case here; Moritz admitted at his deposition that he could have driven off the ramp before securing this load. As an independent contractor, Moritz was free to choose whatever vehicle he wanted for deliveries, and when, where, and how he would secure his load. Thus, none of the defendants had contractual or actual control of Moritz's decision to carry loads in the back of a pick-up truck or secure them with rubber cords requiring him to use his body weight to pull them taut. Accordingly, the court of appeals erred in finding a fact question on his negligent activity theory.