Rosenberg v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 79 N.Y.2d 666 (1992)

An employer is generally not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor unless the work involves a special danger that the employer knew or should have known was inherent in the work.

Summary

Sidney Rosenberg died after undergoing a stress electrocardiogram (EKG) required by Equitable Life as a condition of his life insurance application. His widow sued Equitable, alleging the insurer was vicariously liable for the doctor’s negligence, as the test was “inherently dangerous,” and for its own negligence in ordering the test without informed consent. The New York Court of Appeals held that Equitable was not liable. The court reasoned that performing an EKG is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law, especially when performed by a medical professional who has a duty to obtain informed consent. The Court emphasized that insurers need to be able to evaluate risk, relying on medical professionals to conduct tests responsibly.

Facts

Sidney Rosenberg, 51, with a history of diabetes and heart disease (including a prior heart attack at age 44), applied for life insurance with Equitable Life. Equitable required him to undergo a physical examination, including a stress EKG, due to his medical history. The examination was performed by Dr. Arora, an independent contractor paid by Equitable on a case-by-case basis. Mrs. Rosenberg testified that after the exam, her husband appeared pale and unwell. He died of a heart attack a month later.

Procedural History

Mrs. Rosenberg sued Equitable, alleging negligence and vicarious liability. The jury found Equitable liable on both grounds and awarded damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the jury’s determination. Equitable appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Equitable was vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Dr. Arora under the “inherently dangerous activity” exception to the independent contractor rule?

2. Whether Equitable had a direct duty to obtain Sidney Rosenberg’s informed consent before requiring him to undergo the stress EKG?

Holding

1. No, because performing a stress EKG is not an inherently dangerous activity as a matter of law when performed by a medical professional.

2. No, because Sidney Rosenberg should have relied on the examining physician to explain any potential risks.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, dismissing the complaint. The Court acknowledged the general rule that an employer is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor, but recognized exceptions, including when the work is “inherently dangerous.” The court stated, “One who employs an independent contractor to do work involving a special danger to others which the employer knows or has reason to know to be inherent in of normal to the work… is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others by the contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions against such danger.” The Court distinguished between dangers inherent in the work itself and dangers arising from the contractor’s negligence. It reasoned that Equitable could reasonably expect Dr. Arora to fulfill his professional duty to inform Rosenberg of the risks and obtain his consent. Because Dr. Arora had a legal duty to disclose risks and obtain consent, Equitable could not be held liable for his potential negligence in failing to do so. The court emphasized the public policy considerations, stating, “Insurers must be free, before issuing a policy, to test them in a manner calculated to evaluate the risk presented. In the process, they necessarily rely on members of the medical profession… to perform their duty by refusing to conduct dangerous tests unless the patient is fully apprised of the risks and consents to their administration.” The court also rejected the claim that Equitable had a direct duty to obtain Rosenberg’s informed consent, stating he should have relied on Dr. Arora for that information.