## Facts

- Richard A. Bagley, employed by Sam Friend, suffered severe brain and head injuries on January 26, 1988, while installing television cable.
- Friend worked as a subcontractor to Steve Crawford, who was subcontracted by Insight Communications Co., L.P., a cable television company.
- Bagley (through his guardian) sued Insight, Crawford, and Friend for damages under multiple theories.
- The claims against Insight and Crawford included negligent hiring/selection of Friend, failure to provide proper safety procedures, and assumption of a duty to provide insurance coverage for Bagley’s injuries.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Insight and Crawford on all claims; the intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the state supreme court accepted review focused on negligent hiring in the independent-contractor context.

## Issues

1. Whether a party that hires an independent contractor may be liable to the contractor’s employee for negligent hiring/selection, despite the general rule of non-liability for an independent contractor’s negligence.
2. Whether the work contracted for involved a “peculiar risk” or inherently dangerous activity such that the hirer should have foreseen probable injury absent special precautions.
3. Whether Insight and Crawford had liability based on failure to provide safety procedures or assumption of a duty to provide insurance coverage.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Insight and Crawford.
- The court held that the circumstances did not support liability to the contractor’s employee on a negligent-hiring theory.
- The court concluded the “peculiar risk”/inherently dangerous exception did not apply to the cable-installation work at issue.
- The court affirmed rejection of the safety-procedures and insurance-duty claims without further substantive analysis.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, a principal is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.
- Recognized exceptions may impose liability where the work is inherently dangerous or involves a “peculiar risk,” meaning the hirer should foresee that the work will probably cause injury unless due precautions are taken.
- Negligent hiring of an independent contractor does not create broad liability to the contractor’s employees; it is constrained by the same foreseeability and exception-based limits that qualify the independent-contractor non-liability rule.
- Routine cable-installation work, as contracted for, is not inherently dangerous and does not trigger the peculiar-risk exception.

## Conclusion

The court held that the independent-contractor rule barred recovery against the hirer and upstream contractor on a negligent-hiring theory because cable installation was not a peculiarly risky or inherently dangerous activity requiring special precautions at contract formation, and it affirmed summary judgment on the remaining theories as well.


Bagley v. Insight Commc’ns Co., L.P., 658 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 1995)