Opinion ID: 1295082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Liability of Philip Morris

Text: Philip Morris contends that the judgment against it should be reversed for a number of reasons. First, it says that the issue of Philip Morris' and Texaco's negligence was put to the jury in an `either/or' manner and the jury's verdict against Texaco exonerated Philip Morris from any active negligence, because the jury found Philip Morris did not have reasonable opportunity to take effective precautions to protect against the harm. Philip Morris overlooks the fact that the thrust of Instruction 11, the pertinent part of which we quoted earlier, was to discharge Texaco from liability if Philip Morris had had a sufficient opportunity to discover the danger of the buried cylinders and had taken effective precautions against the danger. The instruction did not contain an enumeration of all of Philip Morris' duties. Philip Morris' liability did not turn on its failure to discover the danger or its failure to take effective precautions against the chemicals. As detailed below, its liability turned on its negligent conduct in attempting to dispose of the chemicals. Second, Philip Morris argues that it cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of A-Line because A-Line was an independent contractor. We hold Philip Morris is liable as a matter of law because of its own negligence in selecting and retaining A-Line as an independent contractor under the facts and circumstances of this case. In our prior decisions, we have alluded to the rule of liability for negligent hiring of an incompetent independent contractor. Kesler v. Allen, 233 Va. 130, 133, 353 S.E. 2d 777, 780 (1987); Wells v. Whitaker, 207 Va. 616, 627, 151 S.E.2d 422, 431 (1966); Epperson v. DeJarnette, 164 Va. 482, 486, 180 S.E. 412, 414 (1935); Davis Bakery v. Dozier, 139 Va. 628, 634, 124 S.E. 411, 413 (1924); Talley v. Drumheller, 135 Va. 186, 191, 115 S.E. 517, 519 (1923). However, we have never expressly imposed such a rule of liability. The principle is described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411 (1965) as liability for physical harm to third persons caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent and careful contractor ... to do work which will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done. The trial court properly imposed liability for that negligence upon Philip Morris. Because the trial court found Philip Morris negligent as a matter of law, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to Philip Morris. Philip Morris engaged A-Line without any investigation of its competence to perform an admittedly dangerous task. Kachur gave Saddington a self-serving brochure describing A-Line's activities and personnel, which was later shown to be inaccurate in several material respects. Saddington checked none of the references cited in the brochure and made no independent investigation into A-Line's qualifications or experience in dealing with pressurized cylinders containing toxic chemicals. Had Saddington carefully read the brochure, he would have realized that A-Line had never handled any such cylinders. The slightest inquiry would have revealed A-Line's inexperience. A perusal of a contractor's self-serving brochure is not sufficient to discharge an employer's duty of reasonable care to employ a contractor who is competent to perform a dangerous task. There can be no doubt that Kachur's incompetence was the ultimate cause of the losses claimed in this case. There is no conflict in the evidence of Saddington's failure to investigate. Moreover, Saddington negligently failed to discharge A-Line after observing a number of incidents demonstrating A-Line's incompetence and negligence in dealing with the dangerous chemicals. Although Saddington had no right to control the manner in which Kachur did the work, he was present during almost all of the operation to ensure that the work was performed safely. Saddington had the authority to stop the work if, in his opinion, it was being conducted in an unsafe manner. Saddington described the following significant deviations from Kachur's plan. On the first day, when Kachur released the contents of the first cylinder, Saddington saw a bluish-green flame consistent with a borate, which Saddington recognized as a reaction with a boron compound. Later that day, while Kachur was processing the contents of the second or third cylinder, Saddington noticed that the ram would not retract when the pressure was released because of the apparent effect of acid upon it. Saddington also heard employees of the neighboring businesses complain of the odors from Kachur's activity, which were apparently entering their work areas through the buildings' ventilation systems, but Saddington did nothing about it. On the second day, one cylinder did not fit into any of several chamber cradles so that the ram would hit the valve of the cylinder when activated. Saddington saw Kachur tie that cylinder to a piece of wood, drop both into the chamber, close the chamber, and attempt to sever the valve from the cylinder. Because the valve was not in a cradle and, therefore, not aligned with the ram, the ram merely punctured the cylinder, and the cylinder would not drain properly. Although he was not wearing any protective breathing device or protective clothing, Kachur opened the chamber, extracted the cylinder and poured its contents into the 55-gallon drum, where it produced a chemical reaction and a visible vapor. Saddington conceded this vapor may have been the chemical escaping from the caustic solution without having been neutralized. Moreover, Saddington told one person about one occasion when combustion occurred within the chamber. Saddington knew there were no barriers to keep employees and customers of ELI and Mentz away from the chamber or the drum and no signs warning them of the danger. Saddington also knew Kachur had no air monitoring device, which one expert said was a safety device to detect the presence of gas which was not of sufficient concentration to emit an odor. We have not previously had occasion to rule directly on the liability of one who negligently retains an incompetent independent contractor. We have, however, invoked the underlying rationale for the tort of negligent retention in another context. Formerly, a charitable hospital was not held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its agents, but we have held a charitable hospital liable for the negligent selection or retention of its nurse-employees. See Norfolk Protestant Hospital v. Plunkett, 162 Va. 151, 155-56, 173 S.E. 363, 365 (1934). In at least one other jurisdiction, liability has been imposed for negligent retention of an incompetent subcontractor. In Lattea, Adm'r. v. City of Akron, 9 Ohio App.3d 118, 124, 458 N.E.2d 868, 874-75 (1982), the state was held to have been actively negligent in retaining an independent contractor who was performing work in an obviously unsafe manner, and indemnification against the contractor was denied for that reason. We apply this duty of care to this case. Given the highly dangerous nature of the activity and the obviously inadequate response to that danger, no reasonable person could believe Saddington was not negligent in failing to terminate A-Line's services, if not after the first day, certainly after the second day of its work. Finally, Philip Morris knew this work was likely to involve a peculiar, unreasonable risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions were taken. Yet it made no provisions for any such precautions. We have imposed liability in such circumstances upon employers of independent contractors in a number of earlier cases. See, e.g., Ritter Corp. v. Rose, 200 Va. 736, 741-42, 107 S.E.2d 479, 483 (1959). In N. & W. Railway v. Johnson, 207 Va. 980, 987, 154 S.E.2d 134, 139, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 995, 88 S.Ct. 498, 19 L.Ed.2d 491 (1967), we pointed out that the rule did not apply if the work ... is of such character that, if properly done, no injurious consequences can arise [as contrasted with] work which is of such character that injury to others is likely unless precautionary measures are adopted. Although we recognized in Johnson that uncontrolled steam would be dangerous if released, we concluded that its transmission in its normal and ordinary mode through properly designed and constructed hoses did not involve a peculiar risk of bodily harm requiring special precautions to be taken. Id. at 988, 154 S.E.2d at 139-40. Therefore, we held the employer did not need to take special care to see that the independent contractor used the proper hose. Philip Morris, citing Johnson, claims that the disposal of supertoxic wastes in an unproven chamber by bubbling them through a caustic solution is analogous to transmitting live steam in a heavy duty hose. In contrast to Johnson, no evidence in these cases shows that passing toxic chemicals through an untested device such as A-Line's and into drums of caustic solution is a normal method used to neutralize such chemicals. In fact, the record discloses that the only way unidentified chemicals in corroded cylinders have been disposed of safely is by exploding or burning them in remote areas well away from humans, taking a number of special precautions to protect persons from the heightened risk of injury from such an operation. We find no merit in Philip Morris' claim that the rule enunciated in Rose should not apply to it.