Blaylock v. DMP 250 Newport Center, LLC (2023)
In a decision addressing the scope of the Privette doctrine’s application to premises liability claims, the Court of Appeal, following Kinsman v. Unocal, Inc. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, has held a property owner is not liable to its contractors or their employees for work-related injuries that could have been avoided had the contractor conducted a reasonable inspection of a worksite for preexisting hazardous conditions.
Plaintiff, an HVAC technician, fell through an access panel in the floor of a crawl space when, contrary to instructions from his employer, he rested his body weight on the panel rather than the joists framing the panel. Plaintiff sued the property owner. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant and plaintiff appealed, arguing the owner was liable for not warning him of the hazard posed by the access panel.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting (a) no evidence suggested that the building owner knew there was a risk that plaintiff might fall through the access panel; (b) plaintiff had a duty to inspect the crawl space for potential safety hazards; (c) a reasonable inspection would have revealed to plaintiff that the access panel was a potential hazard; and (d) plaintiff in any event could have avoided injury by following his employer’s instructions pertaining to job site safety.
