Opinion ID: 1669608
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligent/Wanton Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention

Text: The Turners also allege that Westhampton was negligent and/or wanton in its hiring, training, supervision, and retention of the independent contractors who applied the EIFS (the negligent-hiring claim). As mentioned in note 2, in their brief opposing Westhampton's summary-judgment motion, the Turners argued that the application of the EIFS was inherently or abnormally dangerous. On appeal, the Turners again argue that the application of the EIFS was abnormally dangerous. Additionally, in their brief on appeal, the Turners argue that a principal contractor can be liable for his negligence in selecting, instructing, or supervising the independent contractor. We cannot address this latter argument, because it has been raised for the first time on appeal. Cain v. Howorth, supra . We endeavor, however, to address the Turners' argument that application of the EIFS is an abnormally dangerous activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 (1977). The Turners contend that the abnormal danger presented by the EIFS is best illustrated by one of Westhampton's representatives, who stated: [A] lot of problems with EIFS houses is if there is any intrusion of water, it's such a tight envelope and there's no air exchange, there's no waylike in a brick veneer house, you're going to get water intruding in brick veneer because it's not a waterproof system. That's why you have a one-inch airspace behind the brick so that any moisture that may condensate [sic] or may find its way through the mortar joints or whatever is going to run down the back of the brick and eventually end up on the foundation and out [w]eep holes. But you have the ability for the moisture to escape or dissipate. Any intrusion on an EIFS house is trapped. It doesn't readily evaporate because it's a tight system. The Turners' argument, in essence, is that regardless of how carefully or skillfully performed, installation of the EIFS would have likely resulted in the damage[] now experienced. The above-quoted statement by Westhampton's representative, the Turners contend, demonstrates that intruding water will always be trapped in a house finished with EIFS and will always cause moisture damage. Therefore, they argue, application of EIFS is an activity that inherently causes damage to a house. This argument is questionable. However, we need not examine it in detail, because, however true the Turners' argument may be, their claim must fail. In Dickinson v. City of Huntsville, 822 So.2d 411, 417 n. 2 (Ala.2001), this Court noted: In Harper v. Regency Development Co., 399 So.2d 248, 253 (Ala.1981), this Court, citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 (1977), set forth the following factors to be considered in determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous: `(a) evidence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others; `(b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; `(c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; `(d) extent to which the activity is not a manner of common usage; `(e) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and `(f) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.' Based upon an analysis of all of the factors set out above, we conclude that the application of EIFS on a house is not an abnormally dangerous activity. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment as to the Turners' negligent-hiring claim.