Opinion ID: 780230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against ECT

Text: 24 At the time of the accident, ECT was an ICC licensed freight broker whose business involved matching customers (shippers of freight) with carriers. As a broker, ECT was not required to carry motor vehicle property damage, or personal injury or cargo loss insurance. Rather, ECT relied upon the carrier or operator to maintain insurance. The shipment of cucumbers being hauled by Washington from Florida to Massachusetts at the time of the accident had been arranged by ECT. ECT claims that prior to the shipment it contacted Malone to ascertain whether Washington was properly licensed and insured. Malone contends that it has no record of any inquiry having been made by ECT prior to the accident of May 21, 1993 concerning Washington's status. As we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment in favor of ECT, we shall assume that ECT did not contact Malone prior to the May 21, 1993 haul to inquire as to Washington's status. 25 Graham claims that ECT is liable because it negligently failed to determine whether Washington was properly licensed and insured when it hired him for the Massachusetts cucumber shipment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ECT. The court concluded that Washington was an independent contractor and that ECT could not be held liable under New Jersey law for the negligence of an independent contractor. 9 See 43 F.Supp.2d at 80-82. 26 Graham's claim of negligence against ECT is not based upon principles of vicarious liability. Graham argues that ECT is liable for its own negligent hiring of Washington to undertake the cucumber haul. She claims that had ECT checked Washington's driver's license, which carried an intrastate only restriction on its face, ECT would not have hired Washington to take the cucumber haul. 10 27 Graham concedes that Washington was hired not as an employee of ECT, but rather as its independent contractor. Employers are generally not liable for the negligent acts of the independent contractors they hire. But as the district court correctly noted, New Jersey law provides an exception to the rule precluding liability where an employer knowingly hires an incompetent independent contractor. See 43 F.Supp.2d at 79-80. But the evidence is lacking that ECT hired Washington with the knowledge, actual or constructive, that Washington was incompetent or could not safely drive his truck. See Cassano v. Aschoff, 226 N.J.Super. 110, 114, 543 A.2d 973, 976 (App.Div.1988) (employee failed to establish knowledge by landowner that independent contractor lacked skill to perform competently). That Washington performed incompetently after he was hired by ECT does not suffice; nor does the fact that Graham raises a factual issue regarding Washington's authority to operate his truck interstate given the restriction placed upon his driver's license. See id. 28 Graham argues that ECT's failure to inspect Washington's license constitutes negligence. But there is no evidence that even had ECT done so, it would have gained knowledge that would have alerted it to any safety issues with regard to Washington's driving. An explanation of the AB2 restriction appears in the Florida transcript of Washington's driving record, upon which Malone had relied when it entered into the lease with Washington. That explanation suggests, supra p. 10, that issuance of a license valid only in Florida may result from applicant's retention of a valid license from another jurisdiction. This explanation does not link the AB2 in-state restriction to a driver's competence or poor safety record. Thus, there would have been no obvious connection between Washington's Florida-limited driver's license and his ability to safely drive the truck. Further, the limitation appears to be tied into the existence of other valid licensure elsewhere. On this record, we are unable to ascertain a sufficient issue of fact as to whether ECT failed to exercise due care in the hiring of Washington as an independent contractor, in that it should have concluded that he was incompetent or unsafe. 11 29 Finally, Graham contends that ECT is liable because it hired an independent contractor without liability insurance. As the district court correctly held, New Jersey law does not impose liability upon employers for the financial instability of independent contractors. See 43 F.Supp.2d at 81-82. 30 We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of ECT.