## Facts

- Tommy John, LLC operated a bar.
- Tommy John hired Thor Staffing to provide security guards at the bar under an agreement treating Thor as an independent contractor.
- The agreement placed responsibility for security methods and procedures on Thor; Tommy John did not train Thor’s guards and largely deferred to Thor about how to run security.
- Josue Castellanos, a patron, became involved in a fight at the bar.
- Thor’s security guards physically removed Castellanos from the premises, and Castellanos claimed he was injured during the removal.
- Castellanos sued Tommy John, seeking to hold the bar vicariously liable for the guards’ conduct on the theory that providing bar security is an “inherently dangerous” activity, which can create liability even when the tortfeasor is an independent contractor.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Tommy John, and Castellanos appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a bar that hires an independent-contractor security company may be held vicariously liable under Utah’s “inherently dangerous activity” exception for injuries allegedly caused when the contractor’s guards remove a patron.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Tommy John.
- The court held that contracting for bar security (including ejecting unruly patrons) did not qualify as an “inherently dangerous” activity under Utah law, so the exception to independent-contractor nonliability did not apply.
- Because the claim rested on vicarious liability and the exception did not fit the work at issue, Tommy John was not liable for the alleged misconduct of Thor’s guards.

## Legal Principles

- A party that hires an independent contractor is generally not vicariously liable for physical harm caused by the contractor’s torts.
- Utah recognizes limited exceptions to that rule, including an “inherently dangerous activity” doctrine that can impose a non-delegable duty for certain categories of work.
- For the exception to apply, the danger must stem from the nature of the work and the risks it normally creates unless special precautions are taken; the exception is not triggered merely because injury can result if the contractor performs the work improperly.
- Routine security services at a bar, including removing patrons, are not treated as the type of work (such as blasting or similarly hazardous operations) that falls within the “inherently dangerous activity” category for purposes of vicarious liability.
- Contract terms placing the manner and methods of security work under the contractor’s control support independent-contractor treatment and limit the hiring party’s exposure to vicarious liability absent a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

The Utah Court of Appeals held that Tommy John’s decision to hire an independent security contractor did not make it vicariously liable for the guards’ alleged use of force, because bar security and patron removal are not “inherently dangerous” activities under Utah’s narrow exception to the general rule against liability for an independent contractor’s torts; the court therefore affirmed summary judgment for Tommy John.


Castellanos v. Tommy John, LLC, 321 P.3d 218 (2014)