## Facts

- William Lee Roberts, Jr. worked for approximately 39 years as an insulator for Armstrong Contracting and Supply Company (ACandS), an independent contractor performing insulation work at PSI Energy, Inc. power-generating facilities.
- Roberts’s work involved handling, installing, and removing asbestos-containing insulation at PSI’s plants, allegedly with frequent airborne asbestos exposure and inadequate protective equipment.
- Roberts developed mesothelioma; he and his wife sued PSI and others for compensatory damages and loss of consortium.
- Against PSI, the plaintiffs pursued (1) vicarious liability for ACandS’s negligence under exceptions to the independent-contractor rule (including “intrinsically dangerous” and “due precaution” theories) and (2) direct premises liability as a landowner owing duties to a business invitee.
- The jury received instructions on both vicarious liability and premises liability, returned a general verdict for the plaintiffs, allocated PSI 13% fault among multiple defendants, and awarded $2.8 million to Roberts and $1.0 million to his wife.
- PSI sought judgment on the evidence and appellate relief; it did not challenge the premises-liability instruction on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether PSI could be held vicariously liable for an independent contractor’s alleged negligence under Indiana exceptions to the independent-contractor rule, including “intrinsically dangerous” work and “due precaution.”
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported direct premises liability against PSI as a landowner to an invitee exposed to asbestos hazards on the property.
3. When a jury returns a general verdict and jury instructions are not challenged on appeal, whether the judgment must be affirmed if the evidence supports any theory submitted to the jury.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held PSI was not vicariously liable under the asserted independent-contractor exceptions; asbestos insulation work, as presented, was not “intrinsically dangerous” for purposes of imposing vicarious liability on the hirer.
- The Court affirmed the judgment because the general verdict could be sustained on the unchallenged premises-liability instruction and the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find PSI breached its duty to a business invitee.
- The Court applied the rule that a general verdict is sustained if the evidence supports any theory of liability submitted to the jury under the instructions.
- On rehearing, the Court elaborated on preservation and sufficiency review in the general-verdict/uncontested-instruction posture, without changing the affirmance.

## Legal Principles

- A principal generally is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor; Indiana recognizes limited public-policy exceptions.
- “Intrinsically” or “abnormally” dangerous activity, for vicarious-liability purposes, requires a risk that cannot be eliminated (or significantly reduced) by reasonable precautions; where precautions can materially reduce the risk, the exception does not apply.
- A landowner owes business invitees reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition, including reasonable steps to address or warn of dangers the landowner knows or should discover.
- When a jury returns a general verdict and the appellant does not challenge the jury instructions on appeal, the verdict must be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient under any theory of liability submitted to the jury in those instructions.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court rejected imposing vicarious liability on PSI for asbestos work performed by an independent contractor under the “intrinsically dangerous” and related exceptions, but affirmed the plaintiffs’ general verdict because sufficient evidence supported direct premises liability under the unchallenged invitee-duty instruction, and a general verdict stands if any submitted theory is supported by the evidence.


PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, 829 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2005)