June 6, 2024

CBRE, et al. v. Superior Court (Johnson)

In a split decision addressing the scope of the Privette doctrine, the Court of Appeal has held a property owner is not liable to an electrician for injuries allegedly caused by the failure of the owner to comply with a municipal code provision requiring building permits for electrical upgrades.

Plaintiff was electrocuted during an electrical upgrade when he touched a live overhead electrical junction box, mistakenly believing—based on a mislabeled cover—that it contained deenergized wiring.  Plaintiff sued the property owner, asserting that had the owner obtained a permit for the upgrade, the plans for the work would have alerted plaintiff to the presence of energized wiring in the junction box.

The property owner moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, under which those who hire contractors are generally not liable for work-related injuries sustained by contractors. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal, following SeaBright Insurance Co. v. US Airways (2022) 52 Cal.4th 590, directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the owner, holding (1) the mere violation of the ordinance requiring the defendant to obtain a building permit for the electrical upgrade was not a basis for liability; (2) the plaintiff could have discovered any energized wiring in advance of the accident; and (3) the owner’s conduct did not prevent plaintiff from undertaking any of the safety measures customarily undertaken by electricians.