Minnesota Recognizes Tort of Negligent Selection of Independent Contractor
By Christopher L. Goodman • Jul 12, 2024

On July 10, 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the tort of negligent selection of an independent contractor in Pedro Alonzo v. Richard Menholt, — N.W.2d —, No. A22-1796, 2024 WL 3351561 (Minn. July 10, 2024). In doing so the Court greatly expanded the potential liability businesses will face while operating in Minnesota.
Prior to Alonzo, a principal—either a business or a professional—had no duty to investigate an independent contractor’s qualifications, or evaluate the suitability of the equipment the contractor uses to complete the tasks he or she is hired to perform. Alonzo changes that landscape, imposes liability on any business or professional that fails to exercise reasonable care in selecting an independent contractor for the physical harm caused by the independent contractor’s negligence. Further, the degree of care the principal must exercise in discharging its duty to select a “competent and careful” independent contractor varies depending on the facts of each case.
Alonzo arose out of an automobile accident involving two semi-trucks. The plaintiff, Pedro Alonzo, was driving a semi-truck hauling sugar beets while Alberto Lopez was driving a semi-truck hauling the same load. The two semi-trucks were approaching from opposite directions on a rural, two-lane highway in northwestern Minnesota when Lopez’s semi-truck crossed the centerline and collided with the semi-truck operated by Alonzo. After the accident it was discovered that the driver who caused the accident (Lopez), had a suspended license, DWI convictions, and several recent speeding tickets.
At the time of the accident, Lopez was employed by Braaten Farms and tasked with hauling sugar beets for Menholt Farms. Braaten Farms was the independent contractor Menholt hired to help transport sugar beets during harvest season. Alonzo and his wife sued Menholt alleging Menholt was negligent in selecting Braaten Farms as the independent contractor that hauled Menholt’s sugar beets. Crucially, Richard Menholt testified that he would not have hired Lopez if he had known about Lopez’s driving history.
The district court recognized negligent selection of an independent contractor as a separate tort claim but granted summary judgment on that claim, reasoning Menholt had no duty to inquire into Braaten Farms’ hiring practices or, more specially, Lopez’s qualifications. As the district court put it, “if the [principal’s] liability extends to the independent contractor’s hiring of employees then why even contract with an independent contractor and instead just hire your own employees?”
The Court of Appeals concluded Minnesota has not and should not recognize a claim for negligent selection of an independent contractor but agreed with the district court there was no genuine dispute of material facts as to whether the defendant, Menholt Farms, failed to exercise reasonable care. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the district court in recognizing, for the first time in Minnesota, the tort of negligent selection of an independent contractor. But because the Court was evenly divided as to whether Menholt Farms was entitled to summary judgment on the claim for negligent selection of an independent contractor, the district court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
Relying principally on the § 411 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted the tort of negligent selection of an independent contractor exists when a principal fails to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent and careful contractor, provided the contractor causes physical harm to a third party. This duty is triggered when an independent contractor is hired to perform (a) work which will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, and (b) involving any duty which the principal owes to third persons. The extent of the principal’s duty depends on the circumstances of each case. If (a) specialized skill or competence is required to complete the work properly, or (b) the work imposes a high risk of injury if done improperly, then the principal owes “a heightened duty to inquire into a contractor’s reputation or actual competence.”
The Court articulated a crucial distinction in the Alonzo opinion. If the contractor is not competent due to a lack of skill or experience, or due to inadequate equipment, then the principal will only be liable for harm caused by the contractor’s lack of skill, experience, or inadequate equipment. The principal would not, however, be liable for harm caused by the contractor’s inattention or negligence, as those are not among the qualifications or conditions a principal could investigate when selecting an independent contractor.
Alonzo will have far-reaching implications for businesses and professionals that operate in Minnesota, requiring pro-active steps to shield businesses and professionals from liability for claims alleging they failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring an independent contractor. As the Court noted, the implication of Minnesota adopting the tort of negligent selection of independent contractor will “more often fall on persons or entities in a professional setting who have a greater capacity to understand the work at issue and its attendant risks, and to ensure that their contractors are competent and careful.” Alonzo all but guarantees professionals will face greater exposure for claims arising out of harm caused by the actions of independent contractors—claims which, prior to Alonzo, did not exist under Minnesota law.