Also known as:peculiars · royal peculiar · ecclesiastical peculiar
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
1
in tort law
A risk of physical harm that is unusual in nature or degree because of the specific character of the work to be performed. The risk arises only when the work involves dangers that call for special precautions beyond those ordinarily taken.
2
Sense 1
1
in tort law
A risk of physical harm that is unusual in nature or degree because of the specific character of the work to be performed. The risk arises only when the work involves dangers that call for special precautions beyond those ordinarily taken.
Sources & Authorities· 2 sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Sense 2
2
in commercial law
Knowledge or skill that is specialized and particular to the goods or practices involved in a transaction. The knowledge or skill must be attributable to a party's occupation, dealings in the goods, or use of an agent or intermediary who possesses it.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Knowledge or skill that is specialized and particular to the goods or practices involved in a transaction. The knowledge or skill must be attributable to a party's occupation, dealings in the goods, or use of an agent or intermediary who possesses it.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Examples2
Excavation Near Power Lines
Pioneer Energy hired an independent contractor to dig trenches for new utility lines near live high-voltage cables. The work created a peculiar unreasonable risk of electrocution unless the contractor used insulated equipment and posted warning barriers. Pioneer Energy neither required those precautions in the contract nor verified that the contractor implemented them. When a passerby suffered severe burns from contact with an exposed cable, Pioneer Energy faced liability for the harm.
Roof Repair on Busy Street
Premier Manufacturing retained an independent contractor to repair the roof of its warehouse located directly above a public sidewalk. The work created a peculiar risk of falling debris injuring pedestrians unless netting and ground-level barriers were installed. Even though the contract required those precautions, the contractor failed to use them and a pedestrian was struck by falling tiles. Premier Manufacturing remained subject to liability for the resulting injuries.
Frequently Asked1
How does the peculiar-risk doctrine differ from ordinary negligence in independent-contractor cases?+
The peculiar-risk doctrine imposes liability on an employer who hires an independent contractor for work that creates an unusual risk of physical harm unless special precautions are taken. Liability arises even if the employer contracted for those precautions when the contractor fails to implement them. Ordinary negligence requires only that the employer exercise reasonable care in selecting or supervising the contractor.
Supporting sources
Examples4
Sneaker Resale Dispute
Tammy had completed over 150 limited-edition sneaker resales in three years and used professional packaging and tracking for every buyer. She contracted with Valley Outlet for 400 pairs at a wholesale price. When the market price dropped and Tammy refused delivery, Valley Outlet invoked merchant rules. Tammy's repeated dealings and commercial practices showed she held herself out as possessing knowledge or skill peculiar to sneaker transactions, making her a merchant.
Out-of-State Charter License
Perry Pratt, a licensed charter boat captain in State SS, sought a license in State TT to operate fishing trips. State TT required seven years of residency for nonresidents but imposed no such requirement on its own citizens. Pratt challenged the rule as discriminating against out-of-state citizens in pursuit of a common calling. The court examined whether nonresidents were a peculiar source of any problem the state sought to address before upholding or striking the restriction.
Griswold v. Connecticut381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Zoning Variance Request
Pavel Petrov owned land in the Village of Euclid and sought a variance to build a commercial structure in a residential zone. The village ordinance imposed restrictions that applied differently to owners based on the peculiar characteristics of their parcels. Petrov argued the restrictions lacked a substantial relation to public health and safety. The court evaluated whether the zoning classification reflected legitimate distinctions peculiar to the property's location and use.
Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed 303 (1926)
Expert Testimony Challenge
Priscilla Parks offered expert testimony linking a pharmaceutical product to birth defects. The defendant moved to exclude the testimony under the Daubert standard. The court assessed whether the expert's methodology rested on principles and methods that were reliable and peculiar to the scientific field at issue. After evaluating the testimony's foundation, the court determined whether the evidence could reach the jury.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)
Frequently Asked2
What must a party show to qualify as a merchant under the UCC definition involving peculiar knowledge or skill?+
A party must demonstrate either regular dealings in goods of the kind or an occupational holding out of specialized knowledge or skill peculiar to the goods or practices. Attribution through an agent or intermediary who possesses that knowledge also satisfies the definition. General business experience alone does not suffice without the required peculiar connection to the transaction.
Supporting sources
Does a state regulation survive privileges-and-immunities scrutiny when nonresidents are not shown to be a peculiar source of the problem?+
No. When a state imposes residency requirements or fees that discriminate against out-of-state citizens in pursuing a common calling, it must demonstrate that nonresidents are a peculiar source of the identified harm and that the discrimination is closely related to that harm. Absent such a showing, the regulation violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Supporting sources
272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed 303 (1926)Property
…rather than by out of hand attempts to establish general rules to which future cases must be fitted. This process applies with peculiar force to the solution of questions arising under the due process clause of the Constitution as applied to the exercise of the flexible powers of police, with which we are here…