Preview:

Stout v. Warren

No. 85699-1

OWENS, J. (dissenting) -- In tort law, the general rule is that principals are not liable for the torts of their independent contractors. Vicarious liability arises from and consists of exceptions to that general rule. Curiously, and perhaps tellingly, the majority inverts the rule and the exception, referring to departures from vicarious liability as "exceptions." See majority at 11-15. Vicarious liability exceptions exist to serve certain purposes identified by the common law. When extension of an exception no longer serves the underlying purpose, I believe that vicarious liability should no longer be available. This case involves the "peculiar risk" exception, which allows vicarious liability where the principal hires an independent contractor to carry on an activity that poses a peculiar

risk of physical harm. The majority holds that viewing the facts in the light most

Stout v. Warren 85699-1

favorable to the nonmoving party, the facts of this case fall within the peculiar risk exception. Because the purpose of the peculiar risk exception is not served by applying vicarious liability in these circumstances, I respectfully dissent. At the outset, I note that I agree with the majority's determination that fugitive defendant apprehension is an activity that poses a peculiar risk of physical harm. See majority at 6; Restatement (Second) of Torts

Download 85699-1.pdf

Washington Law