Independent Contractors and Third-Party Liability?

Useful Rulings on Independent Contractors and Third-Party Liability

Recent Rulings on Independent Contractors and Third-Party Liability

LASHANNA GRANT, ET AL. VS SELF-UPGRADE VENTURES LLC, ET AL.

Moreover, the agreement provides “Enrich agrees and represents that it is an independent contractor and its personnel are not Company’s agents or employees for tax purposes or for any other purposes whatsoever.” The fact that there may be ‘profit-sharing’ is not evidence of an agency relationship. Moreover, the fact that Enrich has responsibilities under the Management Agreement does not indicate there is an agency relationship.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOE RELEFORD VS POSTMATES INC, ET AL.

Defendant Postmates knowingly miscategorized Plaintiff as an independent contractor to further a scheme of refusing to properly train and supervise drivers making deliveries. (FAC, ¶ 16.) Defendant Postmates knew it was extraordinarily unsafe for Plaintiff to complete deliveries on a motorcycle. (FAC, ¶ 17.) The Court finds insufficient facts have been alleged to state an action for willful misconduct. It is unclear how Defendant Postmates engaged in willful misconduct.

  • Hearing

JOE RELEFORD VS POSTMATES INC, ET AL.

There are no facts showing Defendant Postmates knew that an injury was probable from Plaintiff’s use of a motorcycle or Defendant Postmates decision label Plaintiff as an independent contractor. Thus, the demurrer is properly sustained as to the willful misconduct cause of action. CONCLUSION The demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the second and third causes of action with 20 days leave to amend. Defendant Postmates is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

MARIE MCGINNIS VS RICHARD GABRIEL, ET AL.

In general the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his servants. (See 2 Rest.2d Torts, s 409; Williams v. Fairhaven Cemetery Ass’n (1959) 52 Cal.2d 135, 139, 338 P.2d 392; McDonald v. Shell Oil Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 785, 788—789, 285 P.2d 902; and Bedford v. Bechtel Corp. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 401, 407, 342 P.2d 495, overruled on other grounds Woolen v. Aerojet Gen’l.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCISCO RAMOS VS LUIS R FIGUEROA ET AL

Defendants first argue that they owed no duty to Plaintiff because he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. This is not a case of vicarious liability, i.e., a case in which Plaintiff’s alleged negligence caused harm to a subcontractor, who then sued Defendants as the hiring party. (See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1439.)

  • Hearing

GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Technijian), for which he is an independent contractor. EFD USA is in the business of leasing motion picture and television equipment to motion picture and television production companies filming in Europe, Mexico, and South America. Teran is EFD USA’s CEO and President, and Ruiz is an EFD USA employee. In 2012, Plaintiff met Teran in connection with EFD USA’s interest in obtaining equipment leases.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CAUDILLO VS WERMERS CORPORATION

Code, § 3200 et seq.) shields an independent contractor from tort liability to its employees, applying the peculiar risk doctrine to the independent contractor's employees would illogically and unfairly subject the hiring person, who did nothing to create the risk that caused the injury, to greater liability than that faced by the independent contractor whose negligence caused the employee's injury. (5 Cal.4th at pp. 698-700.)." Hooker v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WAFA BITAR, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, DBA CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

Williams was not an employee or an agent, but rather an independent contractor with staff privileges; (3) Dr. Williams was not an ostensible agent of Defendant; (4) Defendant was not an owner, operator, or manager of Dr. Williams’s practice and did not participate in, authorize, and/or direct his conduct; and (5) Daoud’s lack of consortium claim fails because Defendant did not act negligently towards Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HASHEM BAREKZAI VS CHEMICAL TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.

In other words, answering the independent contractor question on a class-wide basis does not benefit the court or the parties if individual questions predominate in Plaintiff’s claims under the Labor Code. Reimbursement Subclass This subclass is defined as “All truck drivers who leased trucks from Defendant Chemical Transfer Company, Inc.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

VARELA VS GONZALEZ

.); (2) Liability under this doctrine may also arise as a form of direct liability if the person who hire an independent contractor fails to provide in the contract that the contractor must take such precautions or fails to exercise reasonable care to provide in some other manner for the taking of such precautions. (McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 223.)

  • Hearing

AUSTIN VS. IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Second Cause of Action alleged that the public entities were liable based of vicarious liability of Rainbow Rising, an independent contractor. Gov. Code, § 815.4 provides that “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by a tortious act or omission of an independent contractor of the public entity to the same extent that the public entity would be subject to such liability if it were a private person.”

  • Hearing

MOJGAN ESAGOFF, ET AL VS 621 RODEO DRIVE LLC, ET AL

Plaintiffs argue that the second amended complaint states a cause of action for negligence against Defendants under peculiar risk liability. The general rule is that an employer or hirer of an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the contractor or its employees. “The exceptions to this rule, however, are numerous.” (American States Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 18, 28.) One of those exceptions is the peculiar risk doctrine. (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JOHN DAUPHINEE V. BRADLEY DRATNOL

The issue is whether those regulations excuse it from liability, not whether they create a duty. Moreover, that case was determined at summary judgment, and the Court found that the carrier, not Rite Aid, controlled the execution of the services based on the contracts between the parties, which showed that the carrier was Rite Aid’s independent contractor, not its partner. (Alaubali, supra, 320 Fed.Appx. at p. 767.) At this stage, the Court must accept all material facts pleaded as true.

  • Hearing

SILBERG V. WRIGHT

Plaintiff argues that he must be an employee because the job at issue in this case required a license and a person requiring a license to perform a task, who does not have one, cannot be an independent contractor.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

WOOLNER VS POWER BROKERS INTERNATIONAL HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF LAURIE WOOLNER BY CHRISTIAN ARBID

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that Christian Arbid has transferred funds and monetary entitlements Power Brokers International, Inc. to his personal accounts to avoid paying obligations to Plaintiff due under the Independent Contractor Agreement between Broker and Associate Licensees, at issue herein, all to Plaintiff's detriment. • On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff entered into an independent contractor agreement with Power Brokers International, Inc.

  • Hearing

MELVIN WEBB, MD VS WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPO

On or around August 29, 2011, Victory entered into an independent contractor agreement with Plaintiff for a one-year term that was set to automatically renew (the “Agreement”). (SAC, ¶ 14, Ex. A.) The Agreement included a provision that provided that either Victory or Plaintiff could terminate the automatic renewal by providing written notice 30 days before it was set to renew.

  • Hearing

FAHERTY V. SEWELL

However, the basic premise of these cases is that there must exist a “hirer” –“independent contractor” relationship for immunity from liability for indirect negligence causes of action brought against the “hirer”.

  • Hearing

CITY OF MONROVIA VS PAULINE WHITE, ET AL

The California Supreme Court in Clancy recognized that disqualifying an attorney is “extraordinary relief,” but held it was appropriate there because the lawyer retained as an independent contractor to represent the City in a nuisance abatement action on a contingency basis: “In the case at bar, Clancy has an interest in the result of the case: his hourly rate will double if the City is successful in the litigation.

  • Hearing

HERNANDEZ VS FUNTASTIC, INC.

The class consists of: “All individuals who: (a) worked as an independent contractor, lessee, LLC member, or other outside entertainer or (b) were members of any of the Emerald Entities, providing bikini, semi-nude, and/or nude entertainment for Funtastic, Inc. dba Fritz That’s It Gentlemen’s Club during the Class Period.” (Agreement, ¶ 4.) Because the class includes member/owners of the Emerald Entities, this means a portion of the class actually owns some of the defendants.

  • Hearing

JAMES GRIGGS V. THE MOUNTAIN WINERY, ET AL.

“At common law, a person who hired an independent contractor generally was not liable to third parties for injuries caused by the contractor’s negligence in performing the work.” (Privette, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 693.) Under the peculiar risk doctrine, a person who hired an independent contractor could, nevertheless, be liable for injuries to third parties resulting from “contracted work that poses some inherent risk of injury to others.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

SUPERIOR COURT VS. MIRANDA WINES

Khanna himself or through an agent or independent contractor is of no particular moment at this time. III. Conclusion and Order. The motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. Defendant is given 30 days from the date of the filing and service of this Order within which to RESPOND. ___________________________ _____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

  • Hearing

KENNETH JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL. VS SONY PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants Sony, Topanga, and Bernard do not present authority stating the pleading standard for alleging liability based on the peculiar risk doctrine requires Plaintiff Kenneth Johnson to state he was hired as an independent contractor. Rather, Plaintiff Kenneth Johnson may make inconsistent or alternative allegations. (See Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCISCO RAMOS VS LUIS R FIGUEROA ET AL

Defendants first argue that they owed no duty to Plaintiff because he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. This is not a case of vicarious liability, i.e., a case in which Plaintiff’s alleged negligence caused harm to a subcontractor, who then sued Defendants as the hiring party. (See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1439.)

  • Hearing

STEPHEN STIMAC, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BERBERIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

This presumption is rebuttable by proof of independent contractor status. However, a condition of establishing independent contractor status is to hold a valid contractors’ license if the worker is performing any function or activity for which a license is required under the Contractors’ State License Law.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PROSKOW VS INLAND VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s actual knowledge of the physicians’ independent contractor status prohibits Inland Valley from being held liable under the holding in Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1448.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 34     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.