California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCTortsMedium
A homeowner hired a professional tree trimming service to remove a large, dead oak tree situated close to a public sidewalk. During the removal process, a large branch unexpectedly fell, narrowly missing a pedestrian and causing damage to a parked car. The tree trimming service had followed all industry safety protocols. The owner of the damaged car sued the homeowner. Which defense is most likely applicable to the homeowner?
- AAssumption of Risk
- BComparative Negligence
- CContributory Negligence
- DIndependent Contractor Defense
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Independent Contractor Defense
Generally, a hiring party is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor. Since the tree trimming service followed all safety protocols and was likely an independent contractor, the homeowner may be able to assert this defense, as the homeowner did not directly commit the negligent act.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Assumption of Risk applies when the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encountered a risk, which is not applicable to the car owner.
- B. Comparative Negligence, like contributory negligence, relates to the plaintiff's own fault, not the homeowner's defense against a contractor's actions.
- C. Contributory Negligence applies when the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury, which is not applicable to the car owner here.
Independent Contractor Defense (Negligence)
A defense where the hiring party is generally not liable for the torts committed by an independent contractor, unless the work is inherently dangerous or the duty is non-delegable.
- Hiring party generally not liable.
- Exceptions: inherently dangerous work, non-delegable duties.
- Contractor must be truly independent, not an employee.
Memory trick: Negligence defenses 'A(ssume) C(ontribute) C(ompare) I(ndependent)' responsibility.