Salsbury v Woodland [1970] 1 QB 324
Court of Appeal
Basic Facts: Defendant 1 contracted Defendant 2, who was considered a competent independent contractor, to remove a tree from his garden. However, Defendant 2 performed the task so poorly that a branch caused telephone wires to fall across a highway. Plaintiff, a neighbor, attempted to pick up the wires and was struck by Defendant 3, who was driving too quickly around a bend. The Plaintiff sued all three Defendants.
Issue for the Court: Is Defendant 1 (the employer of an independent contractor) liable for the negligent acts of the contractor, and under what circumstances might an employer be held liable?
Held: The Court of Appeal held that Defendant 2 (the independent contractor) and Defendant 3 (the driver) were liable, but Defendant 1 (the employer) was not liable. Generally, an employer is not vicariously liable for the acts of an independent contractor, except in certain exceptional cases where the employer owes a direct duty of care to the victim or where the work commissioned is "extra hazardous."
Widgery LJ: D, as occupier, did not commit fault and had employed a competent worker. Generally, an employer is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor due to lack of control over the contractor's work. Exceptions to this rule include:
Extra hazardous situations.
Where E has a direct duty but delegates it to agents who fail to fulfill it.
In this case:
No extra care duty on D.
D did not have a general duty of care.
X alone had the duty of care, so D is not liable.