Court Opinion

ID: 9713267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:12:34.352281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.931351
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority's conclusion that summary judgment in favor of Krueger should be reversed. I believe, however, that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the Kreil-eins. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority's determination that summary judgment in favor of the Kreileins should be from reversed.
The only two bases apparent to me upon which to impose liability upon the Kreil-eins for the Beckers' alleged damages are that (1) they are vicariously liable for Krueger's negligence, if any, and (2) they were negligent in hiring a contractor who was incompetent to undertake the task for which he was hired. I note that the Beck-ers advance no claim of negligent hiring. That leaves vicarious liability as the only basis for a claim of negligence against the Kreileins. With respect to that question, I believe that the trial court's legal conclusions were correct.
A master is generally not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. Sword v. NKC Hosp., 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind.1999). There seems to me to be little doubt that, in relation to the Kreileins and their sewer repairs, Krueger was an independent contractor and not an employee. Krueger used his own equipment and was not directed in his work by the Kreileins in any way. They merely informed him of the nature of the problem and paid him to remedy the situation. Krueger was absolutely independent of the Kreileins when it came to deciding what to do and how to do it. Because Krueger was an independent contractor, the Kreleins were not liable for his negligent acts unless one of the exceptions to the aforementioned general rule applies. The majority correctly concludes that none of the exceptions apply here. Therefore, we-the majority and I-are led inescapably to the conclusion that the Kreileins are not legally responsible for Krueger's negligence.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, however, the majority holds that the Kreileins are not entitled to summary judgment because a jury must decide whether they "breach[ed] their duty of due care in the use of their land so as not to injure the land of their neighbors, the Beckers[.]" Op. at 946. In my view, this conclusion begs the question. What is the basis for a claim of negligence against the Kreileins, apart from vicarious liability for Krueger's actions? I can find none.
Upon my conclusion that the Kreileins cannot be held liable under either of the only two theories upon which a finding of liability could be based, I believe that the Kreileins are entitled to summary judg*950ment. I would affirm that aspect of the trial court's order.