Gonzalez v. Mathis, S247677 (August 19, 2021)
In this decision, the Court addressed the scope of the Privette doctrine in a lawsuit filed by a contractor who slipped and fell from the roof of a house owned by singer Johnny Mathis. The contractor, who fell while he was rushing to assist several co-workers stop a leak that developed as they washed skylights on Mathis’s roof, worked for Mathis on a regular basis and claimed that he told Mathis’s housekeeper several months prior to the accident that the roof was in a dangerous condition and needed to be repaired.
In an opinion that resoundingly reaffirms the Privette doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s premises liability theory based on Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, holding that because the contractor knew of the dangerous condition and could have taken precautions to avoid injury or declined to undertake the work until the roof was repaired, Mathis was not liable for failing to remedy the dangerous condition.
The court also rejected plaintiffs’ retained control theory of liability, holding that under Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, Mathis was not liable because he did not prevent the contractor from undertaking any needed safety measures and did not otherwise exercise control over the contractor’s work in a manner that affirmatively contributed to the injury.
Horvitz & Levy, which has handled many Privette cases, filed an amicus brief in support of Johnny Mathis in the Gonzalez case.
