Opinion ID: 2051711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Independent Contractor Design Liability

Text: The issue before the Superior Court in deciding Cross' Motion for Summary Judgment was the extent of the duty, if any, Cross, an independent contractor, owed to Thompson. The Third Circuit addressed that issue in LeJeune. [4] In that case, an employee was injured when he fell into a gap between steel cylinders that had been refurbished for the employer by Bliss-Salem. [5] LeJeune alleged that the Bliss-Salem Company owed a duty of care to the employee pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 404. [6] Section 404 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts states that [o]ne who as an independent contractor negligently makes, rebuilds, or repairs a chattel for another is subject to the same liability as that imposed upon negligent manufacturers of chattels. [7] In addressing section 404, comment (a) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the Third Circuit held that the Restatement does not impose liability on an independent contractor for work which the independent contractor did not undertake to perform .... Rather, it is the scope of the undertaking, as defined in the contract, which gives shape to the independent contractor's duty in tort. [8] In LeJeune, the independent contractor did exactly what it had contracted to do and no more. Nevertheless, in LeJeune, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant independent contractor had an additional duty to redesign the system to eliminate safety problems. [9] The Third Circuit rejected that argument. It held that a duty to design did not exist unless the contract required the defendant to redesign the machine. [10] In the words of the LeJeune court, it is the scope of the undertaking, as defined in the contract, which gives shape to the independent contractor's duty in tort. [11] We agree.