Question

The state of Indiana hires the Reliable Construction Company to do some excavating work on an interstate highway. The state lays out the general objectives Reliable is to achieve, but the details of the job are up to Reliable. The job involves digging holes ten feet deep the whole way across the highway. Given the nature of the job, it's important that Reliable be especially careful in putting up flashers and warning signs to steer oncoming motorists onto a detour. Reliable, however, does such a lousy job of this that motorists are continually driving their cars into the construction area at high speed. One of these drivers, Tim Toth, is unable to stop in time, and drives his car into the hole, suffering severe personal injury and damage to his car as a result. Tim sues Reliable and the state for Reliable's negligence. In this case:
a. The state is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

b. The state is not liable because Reliable is an independent contractor.

c. The state is liable because of Reliable's negligent failure to take the special precautions required for conducting a highly dangerous or inherently dangerous activity.

d. Reliable is not liable because it was privileged to act in a negligent fashion.

Answer 1

Answer:

C) The state is liable because of Reliable's negligent failure to take the special precautions required for conducting a highly dangerous or inherently dangerous activity.

Explanation:

Even though the state of Indiana hired Reliable Construction Company for doing the job and the contract was very specific about Reliable's obligations, the state government should have controlled that Reliable actually carried out its obligations properly.

In this case, it was reasonable foreseeable that the failure to control Reliable's job could result in personal or property injury. So the state should have exercised control over how the work was done. The respondeat superior doctrine does not apply because Reliable was an independent company hired by the state government to perform a specific contract, it was not an agent (or employee).