Stout v. Warren

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court holds that fugitive defendant apprehension is not an abnormally dangerous activity but does pose a peculiar risk of physical harm under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 416 and 427. A bail bond company may therefore be vicariously liable for the negligence of its independent contractor bail bond recovery agent. The court rejects a rule barring recovery by a third party who knowingly participated in or contributed to the circumstances leading to the apprehension, leaving assumption of risk and comparative fault for consideration under established tort doctrines.

Holdings

1. Fugitive defendant apprehension is not an abnormally dangerous activity under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 factors.
2. Fugitive defendant apprehension is an activity that poses a peculiar risk of physical harm, making a bail bond company vicariously liable for negligence by its independent contractor bail bond recovery agent when the applicable elements are established.
3. There is no exception to vicarious liability for inherently dangerous or peculiar-risk activities based on a third-party plaintiff's knowledge of the danger, voluntary conduct, or alleged participation in the activity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether fugitive defendant apprehension is an abnormally dangerous activity supporting vicarious liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427A.
2. Whether fugitive defendant apprehension poses a peculiar risk of physical harm supporting vicarious liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 416 and 427.
3. Whether a third-party plaintiff who triggered or knowingly participated in the apprehension effort, or who knew of its risks, is barred from asserting peculiar-risk vicarious liability.
4. Whether the employee limitation recognized in Epperly and Tauscher extends to nonemployee third parties.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded