Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
An independent contractor is a status conferred upon an individual who can satisfactorily prove
There are further cumulative factors that cement a bona fide independent contractor status, such as “substantial investment other than personal services in the business, holding out to be in business for oneself, bargaining for a contract to complete a specific project for compensation by project rather than by time, control over the time and place the work is performed, supplying the tools or instrumentalities used in the work other than tools and instrumentalities normally and customarily provided by employees, hiring employees, performing work that is not ordinarily in the course of the principal's work, performing work that requires a particular skill, holding a license pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, the intent by the parties that the work relationship is of an independent contractor status or that the relationship is not severable or terminable at will by the principal but gives rise to an action for breach of contract.” (Id.)
In Rosas v. Dishong, it was cemented by the court that “the legislature was unequivocal that a person lacking the requisite license [under Business and Professions Code § 7026.1(a)(4)] could not be an independent contractor.” (Rosas v. Dishong, 67 Cal.App.4th 815, 822 (1998).) If they don’t have this license, they will be considered an employee.
The distinction can prove to be critical as “a worker’s tortious conduct cannot be imputed to the employer on a respondeat superior theory if the worker was the employer’s independent contractor rather than an ‘employee’” (Cal. Prac. Guide: Personal Injury, The Rutter Group (2016).)
“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal. 3d 202, 208 (1991).) This includes willful and malicious torts as well as negligence. (John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 48 Cal.3d 438, 447 (1989).) “Respondeat Superior is based on a deeply rooted sentiment that it would be unjust for an enterprise to disclaim responsibility for injuries occurring in the course of its characteristic activities.” (Mary M., 54 Cal.3d at 208.) Third Party Liability for a person hiring an independent contractor will most likely hinge if they retained control and their negligence attributed to the third party’s injuries.
The Privette Doctrine “does not preclude the employee from suing the hirer where the hirer retains control of any part of an independent contractor’s work.” (Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198, 206 (2002).) The hirer may be liable for physical harm caused to others [third parties] caused by “the failure to exercise that control with reasonable care.” (Id.) “If a hirer does retain control over safety conditions at a worksite and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to an employee’s injuries, it is only fair to impose liability on the hirer. (Hooker, 27 Cal.4th at 213.)
However, a hirer will have no liability to any employees an independent contractor hires to finish the work assigned predicated on a “passive retention of control.” (Cal. Prac. Guide: Personal Injury, The Rutter Group (2016).) But, when the “hirer does not fully delegate the task of providing a safe environment [to the independent contractor], but in some manner actively participates in how the job is done, and that participation affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury, the hirer may be liable in tort to the employee.” (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659, 671 (2005).)
Privette and its progeny govern the potential liability of the hirer of an independent contractor to employees of that independent contractor, based on the hirer’s alleged negligence in hiring and supervising that independent contractor. Here, the hirer was Martinez Refining; the independent contractor alleged to have been negligent, and responsible for the accident, was Maxim Crane.
ROBERTO RANGEL VS. MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY, LLC
C23-00617
Feb 15, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
In general, if a landowner hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work on his or her property, and if that independent contractor negligently causes harm to a third party, the injured third party may sue both the negligent independent contractor and, on a theory of vicarious liability, the non-negligent landowner that hired the independent contractor. However, under the Privette doctrine, as announced by our Supreme Court in Privette v.
SIMON SEO VS PACIFIC LAND BUILDERS INC
BC632528
Jan 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
"The 'principal' who hires an independent contractor should be subject to no greater liability 'than its [independent contractor] agent,' whose exposure for injury to an employee is limited to providing workers' compensation insurance. . . .
LEONCIO GARCIA VS. TONY CORTEZ
56-2009-00343797-CU-PO-VTA
Jul 21, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Code, § 7000 et seq.) ], or who is performing such services for a person who is required to obtain such a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor.” In subdivisions (a) through (c), section 2750.5 then lists certain factors that are required for proof of independent contractor status.
WALSH, JONATHON V. WALSH, EVELYN ET AL.
CU0000246
Feb 02, 2024
Nevada County, CA
Code, § 7000 et seq.) ], or who is performing such services for a person who is required to obtain such a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor.” In subdivisions (a) through (c), section 2750.5 then lists certain factors that are required for proof of independent contractor status.
WALSH, JONATHON V. WALSH, EVELYN ET AL.
CU0000246
Feb 09, 2024
Nevada County, CA
First, it contends liability against it is barred by the Privette/Toland doctrine. Second, it contends liability against it is barred under the “firefighter’s rule.” a. Privette/Toland Doctrine The Privette/Toland doctrine applies to bar an independent contractor from suing a landowner when the contractor sustains injuries on the property, unless the owner of the property “affirmatively contributed” to the injuries.
COREY STRAND VS EDWARD L GROSS ET AL
BC585491
Jan 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Such cases answer the question of whether and when the hirer of an independent contractor is liable for negligence as a result of work done by or work involving the independent contractor’s employees or subcontractors. (See, e.g., Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 667-672 (listing cases).) Kinsman itself dealt with the question of what premises liability duty a landowner owes to the employee of an independent contractor when the landowner hired the independent contractor. (Id. at 672-73.)
KIM V. LCN VENTURES LLC
12CECG02471
Jul 11, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
(1) Negligence – Government Code Section 815.4 Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is for liability based upon the negligence of independent contractor Jordano’s. (SAC, ¶ 28.) Government Code section 815.4 provides: “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.
JAMIE KROLL VS SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE ET AL
1382778
Apr 24, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff argues that Dynamex holds that liability for the acts of an independent contractor is subject to the so-called "ABC Test," under which the contractor is in fact an employee if his work is substantially similar to that of the hirer. Defendant argues that Dynamex applies in wage and hour cases but has no application in this vicarious liability case.
FATEMI VS. A FAMILY DENTIST IN SAN MARCOS & CARLSBAD
37-2018-00024851-CU-MM-NC
Aug 15, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Privette “renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractor’s employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.] Privette also bars liability when the injured employee’s theory is that the hirer negligently hired the independent contractor. [Citation.]
STEPHEN STIMAC, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BERBERIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV19355
Apr 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Dabbs’s theory is solely based on her contention that Plaintiff was an employee of Johnson, who was hired by Dabbs as an independent contractor. (Dem. At 3:5-12.) However, this is not alleged in the complaint, and Dabbs provides no judicially noticeable documents that would support its contention that Johnson was an independent contractor.
HUGO RIVAS VS DANIELLE DABBS ET AL
BC709868
Sep 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
"The undisputed facts show plaintiff Gravelin was either an independent contractor or employed by an independent contractor to perform work on defendant landowners' property and was injured while performing that work. Accordingly, Privette bars plaintiff's action absent a triable issue of fact as to whether an exception applies that would permit plaintiff to recover against defendants...."
MUSIJ VS NVISION GLASS
37-2015-00029331-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 17, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The sole issue on the instant motion for summary judgment is whether Esquivel was, at the time of the accident, an employee or an independent contractor of Defendant Marine Truck Service. If Esquivel was an employee, then Marine Truck Service may, potentially, be subject to liability. If Esquivel was an independent contractor, then no liability would accrue to Marine Truck Service. See Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361. Marine Truck Service relies primarily on Millsap v.
AUDREY WAIGHT-WILLIAM VS EDUARDO ESQUIVEL ET AL
BC600008
Aug 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Privette renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractors employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.]
GERARDO MARTINEZ VS 1645 VINE REAL ESTATE, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV11647
Nov 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The application of the Privette doctrine rests on the theory that a landowner should not be liable when that landowner has hired an independent contractor. Here, Defendants argument rests on the supposition that Defendants hired a licensed, general independent contractor, WL Construction, (this is not in dispute) and that WL Construction in turn hired Montiel.
JUAN CARLOS LEYVA JIMENEZ VS JM LEPE PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV43352
Jun 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court of Appeal reversed a trial finding in the storeowner’s favor, on the ground the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the use of an independent contractor to provide floor waxing services protected the storeowner from liability. The questioned instruction included the following advice: ‘If a person does work for another, as an independent contractor, then under the law the person for whom the work was done is not responsible or liable for any act done by such independent contractor.’
JUDY HALL VS MICKEY FINE ENTERPRISES ET AL
BC616573
Feb 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
[citation] that if ‘an individual or corporation undertakes to carry on an activity involving possible danger to the public under a license or franchise granted by public authority subject to certain obligations or liabilities imposed by the public authority, these liabilities may not be evaded by delegating performance to an independent contractor. The original contractor remains subject to liability for harm caused by the negligence of the independent contractor employed to do the work.’”
MARIA SANTOS LOPEZ VS CEDARWOOD-YOUNG COMPANY
20CECG03757
Aug 10, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury. (McKown v. Walmart Stores (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 222 [Wal-Mart liable for requesting independent contractor use a fork-lift without a chain securing the platform to the extension or the forklift; the contractor's employee fell 15' when the platform disengaged from an extension to the fork-lift].)
JUANITA DEVELASCO VS. ATLAS CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
37-2017-00029572-CU-PO-CTL
Jan 17, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Such a rule would impose vicarious liability on the part of a shipper for the negligence of an independent contractor for matters over which it exercises no control. We do not believe that imposing such a duty is necessary to address the other concerns expressed by the court in Eli.
MEDEIROS V. TRIPLE T TRUCKING, INC.
16CECG00060
Aug 20, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Privette was based on the fact that the contractor who hired the injured employee was an independent contractor, and the employee was employed by the independent contractor.
MSC20-01632
Oct 31, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
By making a license a condition of independent contractor status, the Legislature was unequivocal that a person lacking the requisite license could not be an independent contractor. Id. at 822. In this action, it is undisputed that the subject tree exceeded 15 feet in height such that a license was required (SS # 2). It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not have a tree trimming license (SS # 4). As a result, Plaintiff cannot be considered an independent contractor.
CONTRERAS-PERALES VS BRUNO
37-2016-00043310-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 07, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
By imposing such liability without fault on the person who hires the independent contractor, the doctrine seeks to ensure that injuries caused by inherently dangerous work will be compensated, that the person for whose benefit the contracted work is done bears responsibility for any risks of injury to others, and that adequate safeguards are taken to prevent such injuries. (Id. at 691.)
AVILA, CHRISTOPHER VS. ASPEN BUILDERS INC
2026160
Mar 04, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
.); (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.)
VARELA VS GONZALEZ
RIC1512236
Nov 10, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Government Code 840 says that such employees are immune from liability. If they are, so is the City. This is counter-intuitive, but is supported by Longfellow v. County of SLO, 144 Cal.App.3d 379. Overrule demurrer to the 4th cause of action (negligence of an independent contractor). There are exceptions to the general rule of non-liability of the hirer of the independent contractor.
2021-00555339
Nov 04, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury. (McKown v. Walmart Stores (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 222 [Wal-Mart liable for requesting independent contractor use a fork-lift without a chain securing the platform to the extension or the forklift; the contractor's employee fell 15' when the platform disengaged from an extension to the fork-lift].)
LEMUS VS UP N DOWN SCAFFOLDING INC
37-2018-00035721-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 09, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Privette Doctrine Causes of action available to an injured employee of an independent contractor against the hirer of that contractor are limited. Ordinarily, the person hiring an independent contractor is not liable to the contractor's employees for on-the-job injuries. The independent contractor's employer's liability for such injuries is limited by workers' compensation, and the party who hired the contractor likewise gets the benefit of that coverage. ( Privette v.
EARL GIBSON VS GLENDON-MONICA HOA
20STCV20755
Jan 31, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Privette renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractors employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.] Privette also bars liability when the injured employees theory is that the hirer negligently hired the independent contractor. [Citation.]
ELVA ZALDIVAR, ET AL. VS STEVE LEE, ET AL.
19STCV20803
Dec 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
In light of that limitation on the independent contractor's liability to its injured employee, Privette concluded that it would be unfair to permit the injured employee to obtain full tort damages from the hirer of the independent contractor.
LAZARO MORALES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC700324
Sep 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Even if Padilla were an independent contractor, defendants may have been subject to nondelegable duties under the Public Utilities Code which they could not avoid by hiring Padilla. In addition, with respect to the third cause of action, based on negligent hiring of Padilla, liability may be imposed on the hirer of an independent contractor. (CACI 426, citing Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 662-63.)
BENJAMIN KIMSEY VS SPEARMINT RHINO CONSULTING WORLDWIDE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV39149
Jun 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The basis for this rule of non-liability is delegation. See Kinsman v. UNOCAL Corporation (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 671. Once a hirer delegates a task to an independent contractor, it effectually delegates responsibility for performing this task safely, and assignment of liability to the independent contractor follows from this delegation. Id.
MANUEL ESPINOZA ET AL VS GILLESPIE CORPORATION ET AL
BC585264
Mar 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
To phrase the foregoing more succinctly, the general rule states that if a one hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, and if that independent contractor negligently causes harm to a third party, the injured third party may sue both the negligent independent contractor and, on a theory of vicarious liability, the nonnegligent hirer of the independent contractor.
KENNY YUM VS GEORGE WISZTREICH ET AL
BC597995
Nov 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Guzman was in fact an independent contractor, such that no liability could be imposed on Defendant, as the hirer under Privette. An employment relationship, not an independent contractor relationship, is presumed where a worker is performing services for which a license is required. Labor Code § 2750.5. This is a rebuttable presumption. Labor Code § 2750.5.
OSCAR SANCHEZ-AYON VS ROBERT ERICKSON
BC591649
Feb 02, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Nothing in this section subjects a public entity to liability for the act or omission of an independent contractor if the public entity would not have been liable for the injury had the act or omission been that of an employee of the public entity.” (Gov. Code, § 815.4.) These statutes address the vicarious liability of City. For these statutes to apply, the agent, employee or independent contractor must have liability.
MARIPOSA PEREZ ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC623417
Oct 26, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor hirer is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury. (McKown v. Walmart Stores (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 222 [Wal-Mart liable for requesting independent contractor use a fork-lift without a chain securing the platform to the extension or the forklift; the contractor's employee fell 15' when the platform disengaged from an extension to the fork-lift].)
BRIAN SALATINO VS WESTFIELD LLC
37-2016-00036904-CU-PO-CTL
Jul 26, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Therefore, Hub Group has shown that it has no direct liability for the accident. Nor can it be held vicariously liable, because it was not the employer of Torres, who was acting as an independent contractor at the time of the accident. (Bostrom v.
18CECG03392 (lead case,
Jan 27, 2022
Fresno County, CA
Defendant argues that Welsh was an independent contractor, and Avery was neither its independent contractor nor employee. (MSJ, 6:4-7:5). Defendant cites Sabin v.
MSC18-01451
Dec 08, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Crt. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny do not bar liability against a hirer of an independent contractor where the hirer is directly negligent. The controlling case is McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219. There, the court held that the hirer of an independent contractor could be liable where it provided an unsafe forklift with an extension to the independent contractor's employee and the employee was injured.
GUILLERMO ORTIZ VS. CARL C TROST ET AL
CGC15547738
Jan 31, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
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.
CRISTIAN ROMERO VS WESTFIELD AMERICA INC
BC619619
May 17, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Privette concluded that it would be unfair to permit the injured employee to obtain full tort damages from the hirer of the independent contractor.
JOSE NOEL RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ ET AL. VS SUNNYVALLEY SMOKED MEATS, INC., A CORPORATION ET AL.
STK-CV-UPI-2016-0003654
Jul 23, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury. (McKown v. Walmart Stores (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 222 [Wal-Mart liable for requesting independent contractor use a fork-lift without a chain securing the platform to the extension or the forklift; the contractor's employee fell 15' when the platform disengaged from an extension to the fork-lift].)
JUANITA DEVELASCO VS. ATLAS CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
37-2017-00029572-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 28, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Cross-Complainants further allege that Cross-Defendant materially breached the parties' contract by&(a) [f]ailing to take appropriate action to conduct business in conformity with the laws defining an independent contractor, (b) [f]ailing to advise Cross-Complainants when she no longer agreed to render services as an independent contractor, to that Cross-Complainants could engage the services of a different independent contractor, [and] (c) [d]isavowing Cross-Defendants' independent contractor status and suing
PRISCILLA R. MARZAN VS RICHARD JANOV, ET AL.
22STCV06241
Jun 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
SA Food has demonstrated that it had no duty owed to Plaintiff, an employee of its hired independent contractor, based on the general rule of nonliability and the Privette Doctrine which provides that the hirer of an independent contractor has no duty to protect an employee of the contractor from the consequences of the contractor’s negligence.
CHEIFER VS ROSS
MCC2000429
Oct 09, 2021
Riverside County, CA
SA Food has demonstrated that it had no duty owed to Plaintiff, an employee of its hired independent contractor, based on the general rule of nonliability and the Privette Doctrine which provides that the hirer of an independent contractor has no duty to protect an employee of the contractor from the consequences of the contractor’s negligence.
CHEIFER VS ROSS
MCC2000429
Oct 10, 2021
Riverside County, CA
SA Food has demonstrated that it had no duty owed to Plaintiff, an employee of its hired independent contractor, based on the general rule of nonliability and the Privette Doctrine which provides that the hirer of an independent contractor has no duty to protect an employee of the contractor from the consequences of the contractor’s negligence.
CHEIFER VS ROSS
MCC2000429
Oct 11, 2021
Riverside County, CA
SA Food has demonstrated that it had no duty owed to Plaintiff, an employee of its hired independent contractor, based on the general rule of nonliability and the Privette Doctrine which provides that the hirer of an independent contractor has no duty to protect an employee of the contractor from the consequences of the contractor’s negligence.
CHEIFER VS ROSS
MCC2000429
Oct 12, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Josephs Reply Defendants first cite that, so long as an independent contractor is otherwise licensed, it is reasonable to exonerate the hirer of the independent contractor. Lopez v. C.G.M. Development. Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 430, 444-445. This also applies to a solo, licensed independent contractor with no employees, such as Plaintiff. Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2012) 49 Cal.App.4th 518, 521.
ISMAEL SOLIS VS JOSEPH F. COYNE, JR., ET AL.
21STCV08166
Nov 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor. Id. The SeaBright Court considered whether Privette barred liability of the hirer where the hirer failed to comply with workplace safety requirements concerning the subject matter of its contract with the independent contractor. Id. The Court noted that Privette and its progeny establish that a hirer presumptively delegates the duty to provide a safe workplace to the independent contractor. Id., at 600.
CARRIE MILLER ET AL VS ASCO SINTERING CO
BC604019
Aug 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Premises Liability When the Privette doctrine applies, it subsumes premises liability. In Kinsman, the question before the court was “how these general principles [of premises liability] apply when a landowner hires an independent contractor whose employee is injured by a hazardous condition on the premises.” (Kinsman, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 673.)
ROBERT ATHERTON VS BRISTOL FARMS ET AL
BC665174
Jul 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Moving Defendants have failed to show that there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim. Even if Moving Defendants had carried their burden to show that Mai was an independent contractor, the Court finds that they failed to demonstrate that none of the exceptions to nonliability for an independent contractor applies here. One exception applies when the employer has negligently employed an incompetent contractor.
HELENE CAMPBELL VS MANCHESTER NAIL & SPA INC
BC612017
Jun 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
(c) That the individual's independent contractor status is bona fide and not a subterfuge to avoid employee status.
SUNG K LEE VS HYUN CHUL KANG, ET AL.
19STCV20604
Nov 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(c) That the individual's independent contractor status is bona fide and not a subterfuge to avoid employee status.
SUNG K LEE VS HYUN CHUL KANG, ET AL.
19STCV20604
Nov 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
“A worker is an independent contractor when he or she follows the employer’s desires only in the result of the work, and not the means by which it is achieved.” (Id.) Here, Defendants have provided evidence that Hidalgo was an independent contractor providing valet services and not an employee of Defendants. (UMF 57.) As such, Defendants are not directly or vicariously liable for the actions of Hidalgo as an employee.
TAITANO VS ISA & EST INC
RIC2002763
Nov 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The question here is whether the independent contractor hired by the City would owe a duty of care to the general public. City does not engage in the Rowland analysis to establish that no such duty of care should be imposed. City fails to establish the absence of any duty owed by the independent contractor to the public on summary judgment.
BONNIE PAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF MALIBU, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.
21STCV06205
Apr 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Traditional vicarious liability rules apply. (Id. at p. 285.) Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that Phiffer’s non-delegable duty rule is no longer good law. (Holley v. Crank (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 667, 670.) Plaintiffs’ contention that an owner is liable for discriminatory acts of an independent contractor is not supported by current law. This principle applies whether the actual wrongdoer is alleged to be an agent or employee.
RAMOS ET AL. V. MANCO ABBOTT, INC. ET AL.
14CECG02251
May 31, 2016
Fresno County, CA
“Under the peculiar risk doctrine, a person who hires an independent contractor to perform work that is inherently dangerous can be held liable for tort damages when the contractor's negligent performance of the work causes injuries to others.” (Id. at 691.) The reason for the peculiar risk doctrine is to prevent a party from escaping liability for inherently dangerous activities by hiring independent contractors to undertake the inherently dangerous activities on its behalf. (Id. at 693-694.)
PABLO VEJAR, JR. VS CVS PHARMACY. INC. A RI CORP., ET AL.
18STCV08399
Feb 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Rather, Defendant Maginot M.D. is an independent contractor. (Fisher Decl., ¶3.) Where doctor is an independent contractor as to hospital, it is not liable for his negligence. (Mayers v. Litow (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 413, 418; Konnoff v. Fraser (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 788, 791.) Defendant has met its burden to show no vicarious liability for the acts of Co-Defendant Maginot, M.D. Plaintiff files a Notice of Non-Opposition and does not present any disputed material facts.
TRUJILLO VS MAGINOT
30-2018-00981934-CU-MM-CJC
Mar 14, 2019
Orange County, CA
Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689) provides that under the peculiar risk doctrine, a person who hires an independent contractor (here MCC) to perform work that is inherently dangerous cannot be held responsible for tort damages when the independent contractor's negligent performance of the work causes work related injuries to an employee of the independent contractor.
CHRISTOPHER CLANTON VS. XP SYSTEMS CORPORATION
56-2016-00481127-CU-PO-VTA
Feb 05, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Plaintiff filed suit for (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; and (3) statutory liability against Mr. Lopez, Reina Lopez, Dynamex (now TF Courier, Inc.) ("TF Courier"), and American Deliveries, LLC. Mr. Lopez's employment status is disputed. Defendants contend Mr. Lopez worked as an independent contractor for American Deliveries, which in turn was an independent contractor for TF Courier. American Deliveries and TF Courier have summary judgment motions set for November 3, 2017 that rely on Mr.
THOMAS JR VS LOPEZ
37-2016-00015970-CU-PA-CTL
Sep 28, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
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.
CRISTIAN ROMERO VS WESTFIELD AMERICA INC
BC619619
Jun 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Because the workers’ compensation scheme 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.” (See Toland v.
MICHAEL CALANTROPIO V. DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC., ET AL.
2015-1-CV-287720
Dec 20, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
First Cause of Action - Negligence Plaintiff was not an Independent Contractor “The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor is a significant one: With some exceptions, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees, but not of its independent contractors.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 299.)
HOLE V. HU
SCV-260843
Nov 16, 2018
René Auguste Chouteau
Sonoma County, CA
Such cases answer the question of whether and when the hirer of an independent contractor is liable for negligence as a result of work done by or work involving the independent contractor’s employees or subcontractors. (See, e.g., Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 667-672 (listing cases).) Kinsman itself dealt with the question of what premises liability duty a landowner owes to the employee of an independent contractor when the landowner hired the independent contractor. (Id. at 672-73.)
KIM V. LCN VENTURES LLC
12CECG02471
Jul 29, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In other words, if someone hires an independent contractor company to perform inherently dangerous work, and if one of the independent contractor company’s employees is injured while performing the work, that employee cannot recover for the person who hired the independent contractor, unless the person who hired the company caused the injury. Id. Defendants argue that Bari Iron Design was an independent contractor and that Defendants did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries.
NORIK MARGOUSIAN VS AMIR BABAK MIRDAMADI ET AL
BC618900
Feb 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The Srithong Court went on to explain, 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.
DAWN MARIE FISHER VS ADAM F. GOLDBERG PRODUCTIONS, INC., ET AL.
21STCV07597
Dec 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Privette “renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractor’s employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.] Privette also bars liability when the injured employee’s theory is that the hirer negligently hired the independent contractor. [Citation.]
PETER QUIJANO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METRO TRANS AUTHORITY ET
BC668167
Apr 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff argues he was hired as a independent contractor of Castillo, had been hired as an independent contractor on approximately 10 prior occasions, and never received a W-2 form from Castillo. (Declaration of Jose Villagran, ¶ 4.) Even assuming Plaintiff was an independent contractor of Castillo, Privette still applies to bar a tort action against Defendant. (Michael v.
JOSE G VILLAGRANA VS SCOTTYS GAS STATION
BC695007
Jul 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
There are common questions here regarding both an independent contractor analysis and a joint employer analysis. The Court agrees with the defendants that ultimately finding independent contractor and joint employer does not necessarily result in liability with respect to the Labor Code violations alleged. If misclassification is established, this is a case about the lack of policies, which seems suited for class certification.
JACKIE ONEAL USHER VS WHITE COMMUNICATIONS LLC [E-FILE]
37-2014-00038321-CU-OE-CTL
Nov 14, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Bluestar contends that plaintiff was an independent contractor, not its employee. Throughout the requests (i.e., Nos. 15, 16, 22-25, 27-28), plaintiff provides that “[t]he term ‘EMPLOY,’ ‘EMPLOYED,’ or ‘EMPLOYMENT’ means a relationship in which a PERSON provides services requested by or on behalf of YOU, or (sic) than an independent contractor relationship.”
JIANG QI VS BLUESTAR EXPRESS GROUP INC.
KC068561
Sep 11, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
If the Court concludes that La Mirage is not vicariously liable for the acts of the 5 Diamond security guards because 5 Diamond is an independent contractor and the peculiar risk doctrine does not apply, should the Court grant summary judgment? Or are there other theories of liability that remain at issue, even if the Court decides in favor of La Mirage on the vicarious liability issue?
SHERIF ABDELNOUR VS LA MIRAGE RESTAURANT ET AL
BC671479
Jul 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Court notes that Valley Garlic, Inc. correctly asserts that as a matter of law a hiring party is not liable to the employees of an independent contractor for the hiring party’s negligence in selecting the independent contractor (i.e., negligent hiring), citing Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235.
ANTONIA NAVARRO SANDOVAL, ET AL. VS. VALLEY GARLIC INC., ET AL.
16CV-00315
Oct 11, 2018
Merced County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Privette renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractors employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.]
FLORIAN VASILE TIRSOAGA VS CIM GROUP, L.P., ET AL.
19STCV14465
Jun 23, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
CITI was an independent contractor. A defendant who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor or the independent contractor’s employees in performing the contract.
GERMAN GUTIERREZ GARCIA ET AL VS CONTAINER INTERMODAL TRANSP
BC525111
Dec 19, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
While the hirer of an independent contractor is generally not liable for harm caused to others by the acts or omissions of the independent contractor, there is an exception based on the doctrine of nondelegable duties. ( J.L. v. Children's Institute, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 388, 400.) A nondelegable duty is a definite affirmative duty the law imposes on one by reason of his or her relationship with others. One cannot escape this duty by entrusting it to an independent contractor.
VERNON HAWTHORNE VS WARNER SAFE GUARD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV14756
Nov 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
By imposing such liability without fault on the person who hires the independent contractor, the doctrine seeks to ensure that injuries caused by inherently dangerous work will be compensated, that the person for whose benefit the contracted work is done bears responsibility for any risks of injury to others, and that adequate safeguards are taken to prevent such injuries.’ (Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 691, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.)” (Vargas v.
LUIS ANTONIO ARRENDONDO CURIEL VS. BEVMO HOLDING LLC, ET AL.
EC067504
Aug 10, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Generally speaking, when an employee of an independent contractor is injured, the injured party cannot sue the party that hired the independent contractor. (SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, citing Privette.)
HUGO GUZMAN VS. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
20CECG02082
Oct 06, 2021
Fresno County, CA
Defendant presented evidence to show Shan was an independent contractor, including a Massage Therapist Independent Contractor Services Agreement and testimony that Shan was certified as a massage therapist with the California Massage Therapy Council.
HICKS VS MASSAGE OASIS
37-2017-00013459-CU-PO-CTL
May 03, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
CBO argues that Plaintiff cannot both allege that he was an independent contractor and that he was the injured party. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he merely referenced himself as an “independent contractor” but that he was actually an employee of Menendez and was hired to work for CBO. These are not the allegations of the FAC, as the FAC clearly alleges that Plaintiff was hired as an independent contractor. (See FAC, ¶¶10-11.)
LUIS ANTONIO ARRENDONDO CURIEL VS. BEVMO HOLDING LLC, ET AL.
EC067504
Mar 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Under these circumstances, the doctrine of ostensible agency serves as a mechanism to impose liability on hospitals for the negligence of independent contractor physicians. (Ibid.)
NOAH SIFUENTES VS. FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
21CECG01742
Nov 02, 2022
Fresno County, CA
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue damages based on an independent contractor theory, Plaintiff must plead specific facts to support a finding that this relationship exists. If Plaintiff is able to plead facts establishing an independent contractor relationship, he must clarify whether he is (a) asserting the first through fifth causes of action on a vicarious liability basis, or (b) asserting a separate cause of action for negligence based on this relationship.
KEVIN DAVID PERLIN VS USA TRIATHLON OF COLORADO, ET AL.
20STCV01375
Feb 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
California law places limits on property owner/hirer's liability when claims against him are based upon the negligence of an independent contractor: The owner's duty to warn employees of an independent contractor of dangers cannot be delegated. In other words, a hirer has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for the employees of its independent contractors. ..
MARKEL INSURANCE VS J ANTONIO ROSAS LULE
56-2012-00428643-CU-PO-VTA
Dec 05, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Since there is no indication in the claim that MLR was acting as an independent contractor of the State at the time of plaintiff’s injury, or that the State is being sued because it retained control over MLR’s work, the court will not allow plaintiff to amend her complaint to allege new facts to support plaintiff’s independent contractor theory of liability.
ANA ORENDAY VS. MILLERTON LAKE RENTALS, LLC
21CECG00365
Apr 07, 2022
Fresno County, CA
Five Knolls contends it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because California law is clear that a property owner who hires an independent contractor cannot be held vicariously liable for injuries sustained by an employee of the independent contractor.
JOSE CARBAJAL, ET AL. VS YING H. CHEN, ET AL.
19STCV09256
Aug 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On November 1, 2008, Cushman and KG Capital entered into an agreement titled: "Independent Contractor Agreement" ("IC Agreement") in which KG agreed to work for Cushman as an independent contractor. The IC Agreement appears to have replaced a previous employment agreement. Paragraph 2.(a) of the IC Agreement includes the following language: "IC shall faithfully devote its full business time and best efforts to aid and assist C&W in the transaction of C&W's business.
ROGERS PINEDO VS. GSTETTENBAUER
37-2015-00041511-CU-FR-CTL
Dec 19, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Privette renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractors employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.] Privette also bars liability when the injured employees theory is that the hirer negligently hired the independent contractor. [Citation.]
GREGORY STANDIFER VS LUNA CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV03268
Apr 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Independent Contractor The Warwick contends that Wehbe was an independent contractor. Generally, an independent contractor relationship does not impart vicarious liability on the principal. ( Snyder v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 793, 915.)
DEANN FATTORINI, ET AL. VS SHAWNE MERRIMAN, ET AL.
19STCV25769
Mar 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s 3rd and 4th causes of action seek to impute governmental liability for Defendant Freeman’s negligence either as Sunline’s employee (3rd cause of action) or as Sunline’s independent contractor (4th cause of action). As Sunline may only be held vicariously liable for Freeman’s negligence, and the two options for vicarious liability are pleaded, the negligence cause of action is at most duplicative of the 3rd and 4th causes of action.
ORELLANA VS CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PSC1902500
Nov 15, 2019
Riverside County, CA
There was no policy of giving patients either written or verbal communications informing patients of their orthodontist’s status as an independent contractor. (Id. at pp. 37-38.) There was nothing on the practice’s website informing patients that the orthodontists were independent contractors. (Id. at p. 39.) In fact, the website invited patients to “[m]eet our team.” (Id.) There is no indication that Plaintiff was made aware of the treating doctors’ independent contractor status. As such, Dr.
ZAKHEIM VS. CHANG
MSC15-00439
Mar 24, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
CAUDILLO VS WERMERS CORPORATION
37-2020-00017441-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 12, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The City argues that Plaintiff cannot establish her claim for independent contractor liability. This so-called independent contractor liability claim is not an independent cause of action.
2019-00530381
Jul 18, 2022
Ventura County, CA
The independent contractor defense[2] is inapplicable to this cause of action because employee status is not an element of a cause of action for IIED. C.
YUJI HASEGAWA VS LOCAL JAPAN INC,, ET AL.
18STCV01106
Feb 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.)
REYNA ANGELITA AMEZCUA VS MCDONALD'S CORPORATION ET AL
BC724108
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Privette/ Hooker is a doctrine concerning the vicarious liability of someone hiring an independent contractor, for liablity arising out of the negligence or other actionable conduct of the contractor. (See discussion in Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 518, 524-526.)
LUIS ANGEL TORRES VS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
56-2008-00333128-CU-PO-VTA
Aug 04, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Privette “renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractor’s employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.] Privette also bars liability when the injured employee’s theory is that the hirer negligently hired the independent contractor. [Citation.]
CAROLYN YOUNG VS TURNER TURNER CONSTRUCTION
19STCV17982
Sep 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
An employee of the independent contractor sustained injuries after he fell off a ladder and was burned by hot tar.
CHENG GUANG HE ET AL VS JIETA LIU ET AL
BC650062
Dec 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In the most recent case addressing “hirer liability,” the California Supreme Court concluded that “. . . a hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a worksite, but that a hirer is liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer’s exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.” (Hooker, supra, at 202.)
STEVEN BURCH VS RUBICON B HACIENDA LLC ET AL
BC694616
Jun 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Supreme Court has held that the duty to ensure a safe workplace may be delegated, based largely on the policy rationale that because workers’ compensation limits the liability of an independent contractor to its employees, “it would be unfair to permit the injured employee to obtain full tort damages from the hirer of the independent contractor—damages that would be unavailable to employees who did not happen to work for a hired contractor.
MARCOS VALENZUELA ET AL VS NORTHWOOD INVESTORS LLC ET AL
BC648728
Nov 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
“(c) If the third person’s liability is established, the Court that determines the liability may, in its discretion, require the third person to pay the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the judgment creditor in establishing the liability.” (4) The assignment order shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following: David Walsh returns to employment as a W-2 employee of United Paradyne Corporation, and ceases working as an independent contractor for them; Judgment is fully satisfied;
PREMIER CAPITAL, LLC V. T.O.F. DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL
1468848
May 17, 2023
Santa Barbara County, CA
COLLATERAL NEGLIGENCE “The employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the “collateral” or “casual” negligence by an employee of the independent contractor. The Restatement's rule concerning collateral negligence in section 426 reads in relevant part as follows: An employer of an independent contractor . . .
MARCH LEVIN VS CARISSA TIMM ET AL
BC668005
Apr 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
As above, the language of the interrogatory is too vague to compel a conclusion that plaintiff admits that he was a Kenson employee, as opposed to an independent contractor. Therefore, on the present record, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiff judicially admitted he was a Kenson employee (as opposed to an independent contractor) and/or is estopped from asserting that he was an independent contractor to avoid the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity bar. Kenson did not satisfy its initial burden.
ADRIAN MORALES VS KENSON CABINETS ET AL
BC621960
May 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
With the inference of Bautistas unlicensed status, an issue is raised as to whether Bautista is an independent contractor, which is required to apply the Privette Doctrine. More than 30 years ago, we ruled that this language [in Labor Code section 2750.5] absolutely denies independent contractor status to a person required to have such a license who is not licensed. ( Blackwell, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 170 citing Foss, supra, 139 Cal.App.3d at p. 797.)
JESUS FABIOLA MORENO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS MK DIAMOND PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , ET AL.
19STCV02928
Oct 25, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.