Costa v. R&M Electric Co., 26 N.Y.2d 451 (1970)
A party who undertakes to repair a chattel, even without a contractual obligation, is liable for the negligence of an independent contractor in performing those repairs or related services, such as redelivery, when the services are accepted in the reasonable belief that they are being rendered by the employer.
Summary
Costa purchased a defective air conditioner from R&M Electric. R&M, despite having no contractual obligation to do so, undertook to repair it, directing Olympic (the manufacturer) to contact Rondel to perform the repairs. Rondel removed the unit but delayed its return. Costa repeatedly sought updates from R&M, who assured her the matter was being handled. Rondel eventually redelivered the unit, leaving it in a place where Costa tripped and was injured. The court held that R&M, by undertaking the repairs, assumed a duty of care, and could be held vicariously liable for Rondel’s negligence in redelivering the unit, even though Rondel was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division’s dismissal of the complaint was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.
Facts
Plaintiff Costa purchased a defective air conditioner from R&M Electric.
R&M did not have a service department for air conditioners but contacted the manufacturer, Olympic, who directed them to Rondel for repairs.
A Rondel employee removed the unit from Costa’s apartment.
For three months, Costa repeatedly asked R&M about the repair status and was assured that R&M was addressing it.
Rondel redelivered the air conditioner, leaving it near a side door of Costa’s apartment building.
Costa, exiting through the side door, tripped over the air conditioner and was injured.
Procedural History
Costa sued R&M Electric, who then filed a third-party action against Rondel.
The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, but the Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial.
A second trial resulted in a jury verdict for Costa, but the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint.
Costa appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Did the plaintiff present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence?
2. Is R&M Electric liable for the negligence of Rondel, an independent contractor, in performing the repair and redelivery of the air conditioner?
Holding
1. Yes, because the evidence presented a jury question regarding Rondel’s negligence.
2. Yes, because R&M, by undertaking the repair, assumed a duty of care that extended to the proper redelivery of the unit and is vicariously liable for the negligence of its independent contractor in performing that duty.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that R&M, by undertaking to repair the air conditioner, assumed a duty to do so with reasonable care, regardless of any contractual obligation. This duty extended not only to the repair itself but also to the careful redelivery and reinstallation of the unit. The court cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 429, stating: “One who employs an independent contractor to perform services for another which are accepted in the reasonable belief that the services are being rendered by the employer or by his servants, is subject to liability for physical harm caused by the negligence of the contractor in supplying such services, to the same extent as though the employer were supplying them himself or by his servants.”
The court emphasized that the negligence alleged was in the “carelessness in the detail” incident to the redelivery, a service as necessary as the repair itself. The court noted that the jury believed Costa’s testimony that R&M’s manager repeatedly assured her that R&M would repair the unit. The court concluded that the intervention of an independent contractor does not relieve a person who undertakes to repair a chattel of liability for the repairs or anything collaterally connected with the repairs. Judges Scileppi and Jasen dissented without opinion. Because the Appellate Division reversal was on the law and the facts, the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial.