Lucinda Ruh v. Metal Recycling Services, LLC, 889 S.E.2d 577

Metal Recycling Services, LLC hired Norris Trucking as an independent contractor to transport scrap metal; a Norris driver struck and injured Lucinda Ruh.
Ruh sued Metal Recycling Services (and parent Nucor) and the contractor; the case was removed to federal court and the district court dismissed Ruh's complaint for failing to allege an employer-employee relationship or other basis for principal liability.
Ruh sought to amend to add a negligent-selection-of-contractor claim; the district court denied leave to amend and dismissed; Ruh appealed and the Fourth Circuit certified whether, under South Carolina law, an employer/principal can be liable for negligent selection of an independent contractor.
The South Carolina Supreme Court answered yes: a principal may be liable for physical harm proximately caused by the principal’s own negligence in selecting an independent contractor.
The Court clarified this is not vicarious liability for the contractor’s negligence; recovery requires a separate showing the principal breached a reasonable-care duty in selection and that breach proximately caused the harm.
The Court framed the analysis around Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411(a) features (reasonable care, risk of harm, competence/carefulness, proximate cause), but declined to formally “adopt” the Restatement as mandatory law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a principal can be liable for negligent selection of an independent contractor	Ruh: principal may be liable for its own negligence in hiring an incompetent contractor	Metal Recycling: no liability absent employer-employee; recognizing such a duty would expand liability and harm commerce	Yes — principal can be liable for its own negligent selection (not vicarious liability)
Governing standard of care for selection	Ruh: apply a reasonable-care standard	Metal Recycling: requirement would be unduly burdensome and force exhaustive investigations	Court: reasonable-care standard applies and varies with the risk posed by the contracted work
Role of risk and required inquiry	Ruh: selection liability appropriate when work poses foreseeable physical risk	Metal Recycling: would impose heavy duties even for low-risk work	Court: duty applies when work involves risk of physical harm unless skillfully and carefully done; higher risk requires more investigation
Causation and scope of liability	Ruh: negligent selection was a proximate cause of injury	Metal Recycling: contractor’s independent negligence may sever causation; liability would be limitless	Court: plaintiff must prove proximate cause — that contractor’s unfitness made the injury a foreseeable result of the principal’s hiring decision; liability is limited to principal’s own negligence under §411(a)

Rock Hill Tel. Co. v. Globe Commc'ns, Inc., 363 S.C. 385, 611 S.E.2d 235 (S.C. 2005) (reiterating general rule that principals are not vicariously liable for independent contractors)
Duane v. Presley Const. Co., 270 S.C. 682, 244 S.E.2d 509 (S.C. 1978) (employer not liable for torts of an independent contractor performed in contracted work)
Conlin v. City Council of Charleston, 49 S.C.L. (15 Rich.) 201 (Ct. App. 1868) (early recognition that owner might be held responsible under suitable allegations)
J.T. Baggerly v. CSX Transp., Inc., 370 S.C. 362, 635 S.E.2d 97 (S.C. 2006) (acknowledging more than one proximate cause may exist)
Hixon v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 671 F.2d 1005 (7th Cir. 1982) (illustrating proximate-cause limits when contractor error is unrelated to the principal’s selection)
Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co., 432 S.C. 384, 853 S.E.2d 329 (S.C. 2020) (explaining proximate cause requires both cause-in-fact and legal cause)