Utah Supreme Court
When do employers owe duties to independent contractors' employees? Thompson v. Jess Explained
Summary
Thompson, an employee of AmeriKan Sanitation, was injured while helping erect a steel pipe sign post at Jess’s motel. When Jensen and Thompson arrived to deliver the pipe, Jess asked them to install it over an existing pipe stub, but she did not direct their method of installation. The district court granted summary judgment for Jess, finding she owed no duty to Thompson under retained control or peculiar risk doctrines.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Thompson v. Jess provides critical guidance on when employers of independent contractors may face liability to the contractor’s employees. The case establishes clear boundaries around the retained control doctrine and peculiar risk exceptions to the general rule of non-liability.
Background and Facts
Trevor Thompson, an employee of AmeriKan Sanitation, was severely injured while helping install a steel pipe sign post at Connie Jess’s motel. After delivering the pipe, Jess asked the workers to install it over an existing pipe stub but then went inside, leaving Jensen to devise the installation method. Jensen used an A-frame system with chains and a winch truck, but the pipe slipped during lowering, striking Thompson and requiring leg amputation below the knee. The next day, Jensen successfully installed the pipe using a backhoe with the same chain method.
Key Legal Issues
Thompson argued Jess was liable under two theories: (1) the retained control doctrine from Restatement Section 414, claiming Jess controlled the work by requesting installation and directing placement over the pipe stub; and (2) the peculiar risk doctrine under Restatement Sections 413, 416, and 427, arguing the work posed inherent dangers requiring special precautions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court adopted an “active participation” standard for retained control liability, requiring that the employer exercise affirmative control over the manner or method of work performance, not merely the desired result. Here, Jess only specified where to install the pipe—she did not direct Jensen’s installation method, choice of equipment, or safety procedures. The Court distinguished directing the result from controlling the means of accomplishment.
Regarding the peculiar risk doctrine, the Court declined to apply Restatement Sections 413, 416, and 427 to protect independent contractor employees. The Court reasoned these provisions protect “others”—meaning innocent third parties—not the contractor’s own employees who are covered by workers’ compensation. Extending liability to contractor employees would create unfair windfalls and undermine the workers’ compensation system’s exclusive remedy provisions.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly limits when employers face tort liability to independent contractor employees. Practitioners should distinguish between controlling work methods versus results. Simply specifying what work should be done or where it should occur does not create retained control liability. Active participation requires directing specific techniques, equipment choices, or safety procedures. Additionally, the peculiar risk doctrine remains available only for third-party injuries, not contractor employee injuries covered by workers’ compensation.
Case Details
Case Name
Thompson v. Jess
Citation
1999 UT 22
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 980127
Date Decided
March 12, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A principal employer of an independent contractor owes no duty to the contractor’s employees under retained control or peculiar risk doctrines unless the employer actively participates in the manner or method of the contracted work.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment rulings, according no deference to the court’s legal conclusions
Practice Tip
When arguing retained control liability, focus on whether the principal employer directed specific work methods rather than merely specifying the desired result or location of work.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.