This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was involved in a physical altercation with security guards at a bar and restaurant owned and operated by D. The guards were employees of Thor Staffing, a company that had contracted with D to provide security services at the establishment. Thor Staffing was an independent contractor with the responsibility to determine the best methods and procedures necessary to perform its services. D did not provide any guidance or training to, or impose any rules or regulations controlling the actions of, Thor Staffing's security guards. Based on respondeat superior, P alleged that D was liable for the security guards' intentional torts, including assault, battery, and false imprisonment. P also alleged negligence in the hiring, supervision, and retention or individual guards. D moved for summary judgment in that Thor was an independent contractor and D had nothing to do with the hiring or retention of individual guards. P also alleged that D had a nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe. The court granted D summary judgment. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.