Supreme Court of California

2010 Cal. LEXIS 5968 (lexis.com subscribers only)

June 28, 2010

© Copyrighted 2010 by LexisNexis. All rights reserved.

 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: After getting injured at a jobsite, plaintiff independent contractor, who was hired by a subcontractor, sued defendant general contractor. The trial court entered summary judgment for the general contractor, concluding that the general contractor could not be held vicariously liable on a theory of peculiar risk. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reversed. The general contractor petitioned for review.

OVERVIEW: The independent contractor, who had been hired to erect a metal canopy, was injured when he fell into a bollard hole. The court concluded that the doctrine of peculiar risk did not apply. Because the bollard holes were located next to the area where the independent contractor was to erect the metal canopy, the possibility of falling into one of those holes constituted an inherent risk of the canopy work. Unlike a mere employee, the independent contractor, by virtue of the contract, had authority to determine the manner in which inherently dangerous construction work was to be performed, and thus assumed legal responsibility for carrying out the contracted work, including the taking of workplace safety precautions. Having assumed responsibility for workplace safety, the independent contractor could not hold a hiring party vicariously liable for injuries resulting from his own failure to effectively guard against risks inherent in the contracted work.

OUTCOME: The judgment of the appellate court was reversed, and the case was remanded to that court.

Take a deep dive into our past eNewsletters for 2010...warning - some links to articles may not work...report any linking problems to Robin.E.Kobayashi@lexisnexis.com.

 

June 28, 2010

June 21, 2010

June 14, 2010

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs077/1102828640660/archive/1103461703485.html