Opinion ID: 2571635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: common law negligence claim

Text: Seneca and Milne correctly argue that a principal is not generally liable to third parties for the torts of an independent contractor. See Tauscher v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 96 Wash.2d 274, 277, 635 P.2d 426 (1981). However, their argument fails to address Hickle's claims that Seneca's and Milne's actions were negligent in their own right and that they are liable for Hickle's injuries under common law principles of negligence. In his complaint, Hickle made several claims for relief under common law principles of negligence including strict liability, willful and wanton tortuous conduct, and negligent entrustment. In his appeal to the court below and upon review by this court, Hickle argued generally that the superior court erred by failing to conclude that Seneca and Milne had a common law duty of reasonable care to dispose of their industrial organic wastes safely. The Court of Appeals did not specifically address this issue. Instead, it held that if certain facts were proved at trial, then Seneca and Milne are not entitled to the insulation normally afforded to a principal of an independent contractor. Hickle v. Whitney Farms, Inc., 107 Wash.App. 934, 943, 29 P.3d 50 (2001). We agree that the trial court needs to resolve remaining material questions of fact before addressing Hickle's common law claims of negligence. However, given our resolution of the statutory claim, we do not reach the reasoning of the court below regarding principals and independent contractors. On remand, the focus must be on the actions of Seneca and Milne. If for example, Hickle pursues his negligent entrustment claim, then the question for the fact finder is whether Seneca's and Milne's entrustment of industrial quantities of organic wastes to Whitney were negligent acts that proximately caused Hickle's injuries. Negligent entrustment is a well-established common law doctrine in Washington. Christen v. Lee, 113 Wash.2d 479, 499, 780 P.2d 1307 (1989). It is based on the foreseeability of harm when one knew or should have known that the person to whom materials were entrusted was unable to safely handle the materials. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965); Bernethy v. Walt Failor's, Inc., 97 Wash.2d 929, 933-34, 653 P.2d 280 (1982); Mejia v. Erwin, 45 Wash.App. 700, 704-05, 726 P.2d 1032 (1986). In addition, it is not an absolute defense that Whitney may have illegally handled the wastes because even `intervening criminal acts may be found to be foreseeable, and if so found, actionable negligence may be predicated thereon.' Bernethy, 97 Wash.2d at 934, 653 P.2d 280 (quoting McLeod v. Grant County. Sch. Dist. No. 128, 42 Wash.2d 316, 321, 255 P.2d 360 (1953)); accord Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., 206 W.Va. 333, 346, 524 S.E.2d 688 (1999). If Hickle can establish (1) that Seneca and Milne entrusted wastes to Whitney, (2) that Whitney was reckless or incompetent to safely handle the wastes, (3) that Seneca and Milne knew or should have known of Whitney's recklessness or incompetence, (4) that Whitney's recklessness or incompetence created an unreasonable risk of harm, and (5) that Hickle's injuries were proximately caused by the negligent entrustment of wastes to Whitney, then Seneca and Milne are liable for his injuries under the theory of negligent entrustment. See Supra, § 390. The trial court erred by dismissing Hickle's common law claim of negligence under the theory of negligent entrustment because material questions of fact remain unresolved.