Opinion ID: 1669608
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negligent/Wanton Application of the EIFS

Text: In its summary-judgment motion, Westhampton argued that it was not liable for the torts of the independent contractor who installed the EIFS. The Turners responded by arguing that regardless of how carefully or skillfully performed, installation of the EIFS would have likely resulted in the damage[ ] now experienced by the [Turners]. On appeal, however, the Turners argue that Westhampton owed them a nondelegable duty to apply the EIFS properly. Generally, a general contractor is not liable for the negligence of his independent contractor. Knight v. Burns, Kirkley & Williams Constr. Co., 331 So.2d 651, 655 (Ala.1976). There are two common exceptions to this rule: First, the principal remains liable for work that is of such kind or class that the doing of it, however carefully or skillfully performed, will probably result in damage, or is necessarily and intrinsically dangerous. Baker v. Atlanta, B. & A. Ry., 163 Ala. 101, 105, 49 So. 751, 752 (1909). Second, the principal is liable for the manner of the performance of his non-delegable duties. Dixie Stage Lines v. Anderson, 222 Ala. 673, 675, 134 So. 23, 24 (1931). The Turners' response to Westhampton's summary-judgment motion [2] argued only the application of the first exception (that application of the EIFS was abnormally dangerous). On appeal, however, the Turners argue only the application of the second exception (that the duty undertaken by Westhampton was nondelegable). Because the Turners failed to raise before the trial court the only argument that they raise on appeal, i.e., that Westhampton owed them a nondelegable duty, they have waived that argument, and we will not address it. Cain v. Howorth, 877 So.2d 566, 578 (Ala.2003) (`on an appeal from a summary judgment, this Court cannot hold the trial court in error on the basis of arguments made for the first time on appeal'). Therefore, the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment for Westhampton on the Turners' negligent- and/or wanton-application claim.