Can business owners escape liability by hiring independent contractors for dangerous work? Berrett v. Albertsons Explained

In Berrett v. Albertsons, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether business owners can avoid premises liability by hiring independent contractors to perform potentially dangerous work on their property. The case arose when Irene Berrett fell twenty feet into an open manhole while walking through an Albertsons parking lot.

Background and Facts

Albertsons hired A-1 Septic Tank Services to service a grease trap located beneath its parking lot. The work required removing a manhole cover, creating a twenty-foot drop in a busy area near the store entrance and crosswalk. Austin Miner, the A-1 employee, had been servicing the trap for over thirty minutes when Berrett fell into the open manhole. Multiple Albertsons employees witnessed the work in progress, and dozens of customers walked past the unbarricaded opening. The trial court granted summary judgment for Albertsons, finding it owed no duty to Berrett.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary theories of liability: traditional premises liability and the peculiar risk doctrine from section 413 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Under premises liability, the question was whether Albertsons had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The peculiar risk doctrine potentially imposes direct liability on employers who hire contractors for work creating unusual dangers to third parties.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment on premises liability grounds, finding genuine issues of material fact. The court noted that business owners have a “nondelegable duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for business invitees.” Evidence showed Albertsons had actual knowledge that the work required leaving the manhole open, and multiple employees observed the ongoing work. Regarding the peculiar risk doctrine, the court concluded that section 413 applies in Utah, imposing direct liability when employers hire contractors for work creating “peculiar unreasonable risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken.”

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts both premises liability and independent contractor relationships. Business owners cannot escape liability simply by hiring contractors for dangerous work. The court’s adoption of section 413 creates new exposure for employers who fail to contractually require safety precautions for inherently risky work. Practitioners should advise clients to include specific safety requirements in contractor agreements and ensure adequate supervision of work creating unusual risks to customers or third parties.