Court Opinion

ID: 9757773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:58:32.792074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:44.088650
License: Public Domain

BROSKY, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion because I believe that, although proof of his claim may be difficult, appellant is nonetheless entitled to a chance to prove his case at trial.
Although appellant’s complaint was not supported by depositions, interrogatories or the like, neither, it seems, was it undeniably rejected by the deposition filed on behalf *492of the appellees. The deponent was the son of the Mr. Thomas who contracted to do the work on the premises. Although deponent said that Mrs. Haus did not direct or supervise the work, he also made it clear that it was his father, not he, who communicated with Mrs. Haus. His deposition did not itself contain sufficient evidence on which to determine the role played by Mrs. Haus or to ascertain whether Thomas Remodeling was an independent contractor. I agree that on the record before us entry of summary judgment was premature.
However, as the majority mentions, our decision today contains no conclusion as to the ultimate resolution of the case. I note, with interest, for example, that Comment (f)to Restatement Torts 2d § 413 and Comment (c) to Section 411 both explain that in applying those sections, the extent of the employer’s knowledge and experience in the field of work to be done is to be taken into account. The comments note specifically that an inexperienced widow employing a contractor to build a house is not to be expected to have the same information or exercise the same judgment as would professionals in the field.
While appellant may fail to sustain his burden of proof, appellees have at this point failed to show that there remains no genuine issue as to any material fact.