Opinion ID: 1345931
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duty owed to independent contractor

Text: Generally, an independent contractor and the contractor's employees are included in the category of business invitees for the purpose of determining the duty owed by the contractee. P. Keeton, supra, § 61; Annotation, Duty of Owner of Premises to Furnish Independent Contractor or His Employee a Safe Place of Work, Where Contract is for Repairs, 31 A.L.R.2d 1375, 1379 (1953). The general rule of liability for an owner or occupier to business invitees requires one to discover and correct or warn of hazards which the possessor should reasonably foresee as endangering an invitee. Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 355, 706 P.2d at 367 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965)). This duty to protect invitees includes the obligation to warn invitees of any danger of which the occupier knows or should know and of which the invitee is unaware and unlikely to discover. P. Keeton, supra, § 61; see also Johnson v. A. Schilling & Co., 170 Cal. App.2d 318, 339 P.2d 139, 141 (1959). The warning must allow the invitee to decide intelligently whether to accept an invitation to enter the property and, if the invitee chooses to do so, protect himself against any danger. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, comment b. Therefore, the owner/occupier or contractee owes a duty to an independent contractor and to his employees to turn over a reasonably safe place to work, or to give warning of any dangers. Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co., 1 Ariz. App. 395, 405, 403 P.2d 330, 340 (1965); see also German v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 11 Ariz. App. 91, 97, 462 P.2d 108, 114 (1969); Annotation, supra, 31 A.L.R.2d at 1379. In the context of this case, we may say as a matter of law that defendant, as a contractee, owed a duty of reasonable care to its independent contractor, Officer Robertson, to warn of certain hazards, much like the duty an owner/occupier owes to business invitees. That duty remained constant, although the conduct required to fulfill that duty was determined by the circumstances. Because a duty existed in this case, we must address whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence such that reasonable minds could differ on whether defendant's actions were negligent.