When it comes to screening contractors in Minnesota, some organizations may have operated under the belief that they had little or no liability when outsourcing to independent contractors. No more, based on the outcome of a recent Minnesota case.
On July 10, 2024, in Alonzo v. Menholt, No. A22-1796, the Minnesota Supreme Court formally recognized a cause of action under Minnesota law for negligent selection of an independent contractor, holding that organizations can be held liable for damages caused by negligently selected independent contractors.
A quick overview of the case
The matter involved the collision of two trucks, both hauling sugar beets; the driver of a single-unit truck crossed the centerline and struck a semi-truck, causing serious injuries to the driver. The driver responsible for the collision had a suspended license and an active felony arrest warrant, as well as multiple driving-while-impaired convictions and other speeding infractions. The driver responsible for the incident was employed by an independent contractor hired by a farm to transport sugar beets during harvest season. Neither the contractor nor the farm conducted background checks on the offending driver.
The victim driver and his spouse ultimately filed a lawsuit against the farm, claiming it was negligent in selecting the independent contractor. The matter was ultimately elevated to the Minnesota Supreme Court for review.
The Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes a claim for negligent selection of an independent contractor
The Minnesota Supreme Court first observed that Minnesota law had not previously recognized a claim for negligent selection of an independent contractor. The Court evaluated a series of factors and ultimately determined that such a claim exists.
The Court went on to describe the contours of the claim—specifically, that a claimant must establish that an organization “(1) breached their duty of reasonable care in selecting a competent and careful contractor, and (2) that this breach of duty caused the claimant’s physical harm.” The Court observed that there is a heightened duty to ensure a contractor is competent when selecting a contractor to perform work that is particularly dangerous if not done properly, or where the character of the work is not within the competence of the average person.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court was evenly split on whether the farm was liable in selecting the independent contractor, notwithstanding that the independent contractor did not solicit job applications, conduct interviews, run background checks, or review its drivers’ motor vehicle record history.
For more details, refer to the court’s opinion here.
Key takeaways
Recognizing a new cause of action for the negligent selection of an independent contractor is significant. The Minnesota Supreme Court—for the first time—not only recognized the existence of this claim under Minnesota law, but also described the contours of the claim, articulating for future claimants what is and is not sufficient grounds to prevail. This decision also aligns Minnesota with at least 34 other states that have already recognized the existence of this claim.
Although the farm was not held liable in this case, the fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court was evenly split suggests that many other circumstances could merit additional due diligence tasks in selecting an independent contractor, which the farm did not perform here.
Bottom line: background screening can be a simple but effective way for an organization to satisfy its duty of care, whether you’re an organization that outsources to independent contractors or an independent contractor who hires workers to support outsourced services. Reach out to Verified Credentials today to learn more about how our background screening solutions can help.
This content is for informational purposes only and shall not constitute legal
opinion or advice. Consult your legal counsel to ensure compliance.
