## Facts

- Edward Reilly owned a 1956 Mercury automobile driven by his son.
- George W. Lawrence owned a residence in Lawrence, Kansas, with trees in the front yard near Louisiana Street.
- James Highman was engaged in removing trees from Lawrence’s front yard.
- As Reilly’s son drove past the property, Highman felled a tree that fell into the street and struck the automobile, causing damage.
- Reilly sued Highman for negligent tree removal and sued Lawrence as landowner, asserting Lawrence was responsible because the work was “intrinsically” (inherently) dangerous.
- Lawrence demurred, arguing the petition failed to state a claim against him; the trial court sustained the demurrer and allowed time to amend.
- Reilly appealed the order sustaining the demurrer rather than amending the petition.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition stated a cause of action against the landowner who hired the tree remover under the exception imposing liability for inherently (intrinsically) dangerous work performed by an independent contractor.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the order sustaining Lawrence’s demurrer.
- Assuming Highman was an independent contractor hired by Lawrence, the petition did not plead facts bringing the case within the inherently dangerous work exception to the general rule of nonliability.
- The petition alleged negligent performance (e.g., failure to warn, improper direction of the fall, insufficient manpower/equipment), not facts showing the work was inherently dangerous by its nature.

## Legal Principles

- On demurrer, well-pleaded facts are taken as true, but the petition must allege facts sufficient to establish a recognized basis of liability.
- A person who hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for the contractor’s negligence.
- The inherently (intrinsically) dangerous work exception requires pleaded facts showing the work, by its nature, creates a special risk of harm unless special precautions are taken; a conclusory label is insufficient.
- Allegations that work became dangerous due to negligent execution do not, without more, establish that the activity is inherently dangerous for purposes of imposing a nondelegable duty on the hiring party.

## Conclusion

The court held that the petition failed to state a claim against the landowner because it did not allege facts showing tree removal, as pleaded, was inherently dangerous work that would make the landowner liable for an independent contractor’s negligence.


Reilly v. Highman, 345 P.2d 652 (Kan. 1959)