explaining that under the inherently dangerous activity exception, the employer "remains liable for the torts of the contractor[] simply for commissioning the activity. The liability attaches without any need for showing that the employer is in any respect negligent. It is purely vicarious."
How later courts described this case
- explaining that under the inherently dangerous activity exception, the employer "remains liable for the torts of the contractor[] simply for commissioning the activity. The liability attaches without any need for showing that the employer is in any respect negligent. It is purely vicarious."
- holding that where party has been negligent, a finding that the party was a joint venturer with plaintiff’s employer would preclude common law liability
- finding the activity of installing conductors in the vicinity of an energized electric line was inherently dangerous
- overruled on unrelated grounds by Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc. , 809 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. banc 1991)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 384 (1991)
788 S.W.2d 506, 516 (Mo.1990), overruled on other grounds by Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Props., 809 S.W.2d 384 (Mo.1991);
The opinion
BILLINGS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the principal opinion except as to that part which holds punitive damages cannot be recovered in this case. The reasons expressed by the Chief Justice to support the award of actual damages would, in my view, adequately support submission and recovery of punitive damages. Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part.