Do you think Franklin is liable for the injuries suffered by Bob?

Question

Franklin hired ABC Roofing, Inc. to install a new tar and gravel roof on his duplex. Using a kettle and pumping device parked in a driveway next to the duplex, the roofing crew transported hot tar to the roof. When the gravel truck arrived, the crew moved the kettle and pumping device to make room for the truck. After the gravel was deposited on the roof, crew members realized they needed 50 more gallons of tar to complete the job. The foreman then directed employee Bob to carry 10 five-gallon buckets of hot tar up a ladder to the roof. While performing this task, Bob fell off the ladder and was burned by hot tar.



Bob sought workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. He also sued Franklin, the owner of the duplex, alleging two theories of recovery: that Franklin had been negligent in selecting ABC as a roofer; and that, because of the inherent danger of working with hot tar, Franklin should, under the doctrine of peculiar risk, be liable for injuries to Bob that resulted from ABC's negligence.

Answer 1

Go through your materials and the notes you took in class and see what applies. That's all your teacher is asking.

Answer 2

Depends on the contract. If it is this is want I want done and this is how much you get paid contract, I just want the job done type: the owner of the duplex is not responsible.
On the other hand if the owner of the house was supposed to provide supervision, Bob might have a case of owners negligience (by not providing proper supervision).

If ABC is an approved contractor, there is no way Franklin can be held responsible for negligence in selecting them as a contractor.
When a person becomes a roofer, he should be aware of the protective devices and precautions to be taken whe dealing with hot tar. He a cannot pass on that responsibilty to someone else.