## Facts

- Larry Stout failed to appear for criminal hearings after release on bail posted by CJ Johnson Bail Bonds.
- CJ Johnson Bail Bonds hired C.C.S.R. Fugitive Recovery (Mike Golden) to apprehend Stout; Golden used Carl Warren as a subcontractor to physically apprehend him.
- During the pursuit, Warren intentionally rear-ended Stout’s vehicle to stop him, forcing it off the road into a tree and causing severe injuries.
- Stout sued Warren, Golden/C.C.S.R., and CJ Johnson Bail Bonds, alleging CJ Johnson was vicariously liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts nondelegable-duty theories: (1) peculiar risk/special danger (§§ 416, 427) and (2) abnormally dangerous activity (§ 427A).
- Stout later died; his estate, through Barbara Stout as personal representative, continued the action.

## Issues

1. Whether fugitive apprehension performed by an independent contractor poses a peculiar risk or special danger such that the bail bond company may be vicariously liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 416 and 427.
2. Whether fugitive apprehension constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity triggering vicarious liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427A.
3. Whether vicarious liability under these Restatement theories is limited to claims by “innocent nonparticipants,” excluding the fugitive being apprehended.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for CJ Johnson Bail Bonds and remanded.
- The court held that fugitive apprehension can qualify as work involving a peculiar risk and special danger under §§ 416 and 427, permitting vicarious liability despite use of independent contractors.
- The court rejected an “innocent nonparticipant” requirement as a categorical bar under Washington law for these nondelegable-duty doctrines.
- The court held the Restatement comment excluding recovery by an independent contractor’s employees did not apply because Stout was not an employee of the contractor.
- The court declined to decide whether fugitive apprehension is abnormally dangerous under § 427A because the claim could proceed under §§ 416 and 427.

## Legal Principles

- A hiring party is generally not vicariously liable for an independent contractor’s negligence, but nondelegable-duty exceptions apply when the work (a) creates a peculiar risk unless special precautions are taken (§ 416) or (b) involves a special danger inherent in or normal to the work (§ 427).
- For §§ 416 and 427, the focus is the nature of the work and the employer’s duty to ensure special precautions, not the injured person’s status as “innocent” or a participant.
- A plaintiff’s participation in the events and knowledge of risk may bear on comparative fault, but does not categorically foreclose nondelegable-duty vicarious liability.
- The Restatement limitation relating to injuries to the independent contractor’s employees is narrow and does not extend to nonemployees such as a fugitive being apprehended.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the estate to pursue vicarious-liability claims against the bail bond company because fugitive apprehension may involve inherent dangers and risks requiring special precautions under Restatement §§ 416 and 427, and Washington law does not impose an “innocent nonparticipant” bar to such claims.


Stout v. Warren, 290 P.3d 972 (Wash. 2012)