In Cordero, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from an industrial accident. The defendant, a “turnkey” contractor (a construction company acting on behalf of a general contractor) subcontracted with the plaintiff’s employer. After plaintiff was injured and sued the defendant hirer, the trial court granted summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which generally precludes personal injury actions by contractor’s employees for their work-related injuries.
On appeal, the plaintiff in Cordero argued that, notwithstanding the Privette doctrine, the hirer purportedly owed him a non-delegable duty of care because (1) Cal-OSHA provisions purportedly required the hirer to ensure the safety of its contractors’ employees; (2) the hirer’s contract with the general contractor required the hirer to maintain worksite safety; and (3) the hirer retained control over certain conditions at the contractor’s worksite. The Court of Appeal rejected each of these theories, holding that an injured contractor’s employee cannot avoid Privette’s general rule of non-liability by claiming the hirer owed a non-delegable duty of care, but can prevail only by establishing the elements of one of the two narrow exceptions to the Privette doctrine. As plaintiff raised no triable issue under the exceptions, the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment.
This opinion was initially unpublished, but in response to several requests for publication, including a request filed by Horvitz & Levy, the Court of Appeal directed that the opinion be published.
