Independent Contractors and Third-Party Liability?

Useful Rulings on Independent Contractors and Third-Party Liability

Recent Rulings on Independent Contractors and Third-Party Liability

ROVERE V. PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD DBA CALTRAIN

Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, the California Supreme Court noted that those prior cases were premised on the common law principle “that when a hirer delegated a task to an independent contractor, it in effect delegated responsibility for performing that task safely, and assignment of liability to the contractor followed that delegation.” (Id. at p.671.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ANATOLII HOLISHENKO, ET AL. VS TEMPERATURE GIANT CORPORATION, ET AL.

She performed bookkeeping services for her son, but as an independent contractor who owns her own bookkeeping business. Defendant tendered this matter to all potential insurance carriers, and all coverage has been denied by virtue of exclusions in the policies. Defendant will be paying out of her own pocket. The settlement was entered into without collusion or fraud and for the purpose of avoiding protracted and expensive litigation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANTHONY MICELI VS YURY PAVLOV ET AL

Uber claims that Pavlov not an employee but an independent contractor. Pavlov alleges that Kavan was responsible for the accident. Cross-Defendant Donlen Trust (“Donlen”) is alleged to be the owner of the SPE truck. Plaintiff set dresser, passenger and SPE employee Miceli prays for damages in excess of $1 million dollars against Uber and its alleged driver. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Uber cross-claimed against Cross-Defendants SPE, Kavan and Donlen.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

AT&T Mobility claims that it cannot be held liable for Vinculums’ negligence because Vinculums is an independent contractor and the peculiar risk doctrine does not apply. Generally, a hirer of an independent contractor “is not liable for the negligence of the contractor or its employees.” (American States Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 18, 28.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

PHILIP BRUNO VS SWITCH CREATIVE GROUP, INC, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor and violated various wage and hour laws. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on September 23, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS KEDI ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Further, Ding attests that while she operated the Properties, each of the Properties’ “girls” worked their own schedule as an independent contractor and that she had just three employees who worked as a supervisor. (Ding Decl. ¶ 7.) In reply, Plaintiff contends that whether the sex workers were employed as independent contractors is irrelevant to the RAL allegations against both Properties. (Reply, 8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SHEHEDA ABUSAMAHA VS AAA AUTO CLUB ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

While Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contract with AAA who then sent out United as an independent contractor, they have not sufficiently alleged an agency relationship. (See Sterling v. Taylor (2007) 40 Cal.4th 757, 773 holding a contract made in the name of an agent may be enforced against an undisclosed principal.) Defendant United also argues Plaintiff fails to plead the necessary components of the alleged contract. The court agrees. Plaintiff fails to allege any of the terms of the contract.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MONICA LOPEZ VS CENERGY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC

In fact, Plaintiff has shown no facts rebutting Defendant’s showing that cross-defendant ASAP, who acted as the independent contractor of Defendant and was the one to administer the drug test to Plaintiff, was controlled by Defendant to impugn cross-defendant ASAP’s potential liability onto Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JINN ONG VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, noted that a “managing agent” need not be an employee, and could be an independent contractor. Both parties acknowledge that Lost was not a party, nor was he an officer, director, or employee of Watchtower. However, Lopez argued Lösch was a party-affiliated deponent because he was a “managing agent” based on his status as a member of a Jehovah's Witnesses organization known as the Governing Body.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA ET AL VS NEWHALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Privette and its progeny stand for the proposition that the hirer of an independent contractor cannot be held liable for injuries to an employee of an independent contractor where the hirer did not cause the injuries. Id. at 702.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

The original contractor remains subject to liability for harm caused by the negligence of the independent contractor employed to do the work.’” (Hill Brothers Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008.) “The “seminal case” [citation] addressing the employee/independent contractor distinction is Empire Star Mines Co. v. Cal. Emp. Com. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 33, 168 P.2d 686 (Empire Star ), disapproved on other grounds in (People v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JASON HUTCHINSON VS GOOGLE, INC., ET AL.

Hutchinson’s personnel file or other worker file (such as one related to independent contractor status), including without limitation, job applications, offers, resumes, notices of commendation, warnings, discipline, termination, and/or layoff information (and related documents), performance appraisals/reviews, and compensation information; 2. Employment, consulting and/or contractor contracts or agreements with or related to Hutchinson; 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EVGENY LAVRENTEV, ET AL. VS DOE DRIVER (DOE 1), ET AL.

Liability of Employees and Independent Contractors Defendant also moves to strike references to Government Code sections 815.2 and 815.4, which impute liability onto a public entity for the acts and omissions of an employee or independent contractor. (Compl., ¶ 37.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REYNA ANGELITA AMEZCUA VS MCDONALD'S CORPORATION ET AL

Ruby did not meet its burden of persuasion because it did not address the issue of non-delegable duties: “the nondelegable duty rule is a form of vicarious liability because it is not based on the personal fault of the landowner who hired the independent contractor. Rather, the party charged with a nondelegable duty is ‘held liable for the negligence of his agent, whether his agent was an employee or an independent contractor.’ (Maloney v. Rath, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 446, italics added.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

EMIL MATUSENKO ET AL VS DALCO FORENSIC CONSULTANTS INC ET AL

Matrix is merely an independent contractor that was hired to complete work on the property. Plaintiffs oppose by arguing Matrix can be held liable as an agent of the HOA and Ross. Plaintiff argues that Matrix’s insistence that it is an independent contractor is not persuasive because an entity can be both an agent and an independent contractor for tort liability. (Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1184.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

The goal of the “totality of the circumstances” test is to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. (See Lambertsen v. Utah Dept. of Corrections [*410] (10th Cir. 1996) 79 F.3d 1024, 1028, fn. 1, cited in Vernon v. State of California, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th 114.) Many of the factors to be considered simply make no sense in the context of this case.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KEVIN SAURER ET AL VS GADFLY COMMUNICATIONS INC ET AL

“[A] business cannot unilaterally determine a worker’s status simply by assigning the worker the label ‘independent contractor’ or by requiring the worker, as a condition of hiring, to enter a contract that designates the worker as an independent contractor.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JEFFREY CREMEANS VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

Defendant has met its burden of establishing that it hired Plaintiff’s employer as a independent contractor. Defendant submits a copy of the Master Service Agreement (“MSA”) entered into by Defendant and Henkels & McCoy (“H&M”). (Appendix Exh. A.) The MSA provides that H&M was to perform the service agreed upon “as an independent contractor for Edison.” (Id. § 17.8.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FONDA V. NBCC, LLC

As a tennis instructor at the club, he was an independent contractor. He did not own or control the premises where Plaintiff tripped. That he made it a practice to check the court before lessons does not create a duty in him to ensure the premises were in the proper condition or that Plaintiff did not play on them if they were not in proper condition. As an instructor, he is protected from liability under the assumption of the risk doctrine. Kahn v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

FONDA V. NBCC, LLC

As a tennis instructor at the club, he was an independent contractor. He did not own or control the premises where Plaintiff tripped. That he made it a practice to check the court before lessons does not create a duty in him to ensure the premises were in the proper condition or that Plaintiff did not play on them if they were not in proper condition. As an instructor, he is protected from liability under the assumption of the risk doctrine. Kahn v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

JUSTIN RYAN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.

Thus, “[t]he court concluded that the policy reasons for allowing a third party to recover against the hirer of a negligent independent contractor under the doctrine of peculiar risk were simply not present when the injured plaintiff was an employee covered by workers’ compensation.” (Johnson v. Raytheon Company, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 617, 628.) The California Supreme Court has found exceptions to Privette’s general rule.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.