Opinion ID: 2382024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability Based on Peculiar Risk

Text: [¶ 18] Legassie also argues that even if Deane was an independent contractor rather than an employee, the Company may nonetheless be held responsible on a theory of peculiar risk. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 416 (1965) provides that the negligence of an independent contractor may be imputed to an employer, if the employer should have recognized that the work posed a particular risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken. Id. Legassie claims that the Company should have known that picking up newspapers on a dark street in the early morning hours posed a peculiar risk and that under such circumstances, a reasonable person would have required William Deane to signal with a horn while he was backing. [¶ 19] We have not yet explicitly adopted § 416 of the Restatement. See Dexter v. Town of Norway, 1998 ME 195, ¶ 9, 715 A.2d 169, 172 (1998). In fact, we recently indicated that [w]e are far less certain whether and under what circumstances we would recognize the doctrine variously described as involving . . . `a peculiar risk.' Id. ¶ 10, 715 A.2d at 172. Here, once again, we need not determine whether and under what circumstances we would adopt such a cause of action. We conclude that Legassie has not presented any facts that would support a claim under a theory of peculiar risk. Driving a car, in the circumstances presented here, is simply not the type of risk contemplated by section 416. [10] The entry is: Judgment as to liability on the theory of peculiar risk affirmed. Judgment as to Deane's employment status vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.