(2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties, and (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, “launche a force or instrument of harm” , 98 N.Y.2d 136 (2002) laid out the three exceptions to this general rule, which would give rise to such third party independent contractor liability:
It is only when a contractor enters into a contract to render services and assumes greater duties than average, that it may be said to have assumed a duty of care and thus be potentially liable in tort to an injured plaintiff. The general rule is that a contractor owes a duty of care only to those who are in privity of contract - that is, who are direct parties to the contract. Such a contractual obligation between the landowner and the contractor, on its own, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor a third party, such as an injured plaintiff. However, an obligation like maintenance can be contracted out and assigned to a third party. Generally, an owner of property open to the public owes a duty of care to potential plaintiffs from dangerous conditions which the owner knew or should have known about with a reasonable inspection of the premises, that is, an owner with actual or constructive knowledge of that condition. Who owes you a duty of care? Is it X? Is Y? Is it both? Determining who has a duty of care, however, is not always straight forward, especially where multiple parties are at play.Įxample: you slip and fall on ice in a shopping mall parking lot, owned by person X, who has contracted with person Y to be responsible for snow and ice removal. To be liable for negligence in a personal injury action, it must be established that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that the duty was breached, and that said breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
0 kommentar(er)
