Opinion ID: 2117209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: peculiar unreasonable risk

Text: Kirby contends that, as a matter of law, the door-to-door sale of vacuum cleaners does not create a peculiar unreasonable risk of harm. A more appropriate focus in this case is whether the work that Kirby engaged Urie to dothe recruitment and hiring of dealers for in-home demonstration and sale of Kirby vacuum cleanersis work that Kirby should recognize as likely to create, during its progress, a peculiar unreasonable risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken. As McLean states in a brief: The recruitment of dealers by distributors was likely to create a peculiar unreasonable risk of physical harm if it resulted in the presence of a person with criminal or dangerous propensities in a person's home. Special precautions in the form of reasonable investigation of an applicant's background would minimize the risk of recruiting a dealer with criminal or dangerous propensities. The Kirby Company recognized the peculiar unreasonable risk of harm, that special precautions would minimize the risk, and its knowledge in this regard was superior to that of the distributors. McLean asserts that Kirby had a duty to require its distributors to take such precautions, or otherwise exercise reasonable care to provide for the taking of such precautions, and that Kirby breached that duty. An employer's placement of an employee in the home of another may create a risk of harm to the occupant if precautions are not taken in selecting the employee. This is illustrated by such cases as Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments, 331 N.W.2d 907 (Minn.1983) (tenant raped by apartment manager who gained access with a passkey); Kendall v. Gore Properties, Inc., 236 F.2d 673 (D.C.Cir.1956) (tenant killed by a painter engaged by an apartment building resident manager, who gave the painter a key and unrestricted access to the tenant's apartment); Williams v. Feather Sound, Inc., 386 So.2d 1238 (Fla.App.1980) (guest in a condominium assaulted by a maintenance worker given passkeys); Fleming v. Bronfin, 80 A.2d 915 (D.C.App. 1951) (woman assaulted in her apartment by a grocery deliveryman). These illustrative decisions say that liability may be imposed on the employer for not taking proper precautions. Kirby asserts that Restatement § 413 has almost exclusively been utilized as a theory of potential liability in construction injury cases. However, the doctrine stated in Restatement (2d) of Torts § 413 was also the basis of liability in Wilson v. Good Humor Corp., 757 F.2d 1293 (D.C.Cir.1985). In that case, a child died as a result of being struck by a car as she responded to a Good Humor ice cream vendor who parked his truck on a street and began ringing the distinctive Good Humor jingle bells. Id., at 1296. Good Humor had sold ice cream products in the streets for many years through vendors who were Good Humor employees. Before this accident, Good Humor converted its vendors to independent contractors and abandoned the extensive safety program it had previously maintained. The court determined that Good Humor was liable under the § 413 doctrine, explaining: Section 413 of the Restatement supports direct liability if the employer has reason to know that the independent contractor's work is likely to create a peculiar risk to others absent special precautions and if the employer takes no steps to minimize that risk by contract or otherwise.... The Restatement defines a peculiar risk as a risk peculiar to the work to be done, and arising out of its character, or out of the place where it is to be done, against which a reasonable [person] would recognize the necessity of taking special precautions. (Citations omitted.) Good Humor at 1304-05. The vendors do not possess any special experience or knowledge concerning the risks peculiar to their task. Good Humor, by contrast, has special and detailed knowledge of the peculiar risks to children involved in its operation and is in the best position to ensure reasonable safety awareness. Despite its concededly extensive knowledge of those risks, moreover, Good Humor has apparently chosen to disclaim responsibility for warning its vendors or for taking any precautions whatsoever against the known and specific dangers to children who purchase ice cream from their vendors. Id. at 1306. Accordingly, we hold only that, under the circumstances of this case, Good Humor cannot insulate itself from liability in its own field of business when it engaged vendors to sell Good Humor products from the curbside, knew or had special reason to know of the risks to children inherent in its operation, and flatly refused to take any steps designed to minimize those risks, including warning its vendors. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the plaintiffs are entitled to a jury determination on Good Humor's liability under the peculiar risk doctrine. Id. at 1307-08. Many of the reasons underlying Good Humor exist in this case as well. Kirby had reason to know that the independent contractor's work is likely to create a peculiar risk to others absent special precautions. Kirby took no steps to minimize that risk by contract or otherwise. Urie had no special experience or knowledge about the risks peculiar to its task. Kirby had special knowledge of the peculiar risks to potential customers and was in the best position to ensure reasonable safety awareness. Kirby disclaimed responsibility for warning Urie or for taking any precautions against the dangers to which potential purchasers of Kirby products were exposed. We conclude that the work done by Kirby's independent distributors on behalf of Kirby involves a peculiar unreasonable risk of physical harm as a matter of law.