Independent Contractors and Third-Party Liability in California

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.

"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. . . .

Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875: “[T]he primary purpose [of section 598] is to permit the issue of liability in personal injury cases to be tried prior to that of damages when, in the opinion of the court, the facts of a particular case justify it.” …  Such separate trial of the liability issue was considered desirable to avoid wasting court time in cases where the plaintiff loses on the liability issue, to promote settlements where the plaintiff wins on the liability issue, and to afford a more logical presentation

Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875: “[T]he primary purpose [of section 598] is to permit the issue of liability in personal injury cases to be tried prior to that of damages when, in the opinion of the court, the facts of a particular case justify it.” …  Such separate trial of the liability issue was considered desirable to avoid wasting court time in cases where the plaintiff loses on the liability issue, to promote settlements where the plaintiff wins on the liability issue, and to afford a more logical presentation

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.

However, in Millsap , the Court additionally found that the employer was not precluded from delegating responsibilities to an independent contractor. ( Millsap , supra , 227 Cal.App.3d at 435 [Finding that& Pence was acting as an independent contractor, and that NCE was not precluded from delegating to Pence the responsibility of delivering packages without including any liability resulting therefrom.].)

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.)

First, the Court notes that liability may be imposed on the hirer of an independent contractor for the negligent selection of the contractor. ( See Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 662-664 (A person conducting an activity through servants or other agents is subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless in the supervision of the activity).)

(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.

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.

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.]

Under the "peculiar risk" doctrine exception, liability may be imputed to the hiring party if the independent contractor was performing a job with an inherent risk of injury arising out of the character of the work to be performed or the place where it is to be performed, and against which a reasonable person would recognize the necessity of taking special precautions. Id. at ¶ 2:831. (citing Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693-696).

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.

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.

Privette pertains to whether a hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of the independent contractor when they are injured on the job. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 702.) While McCarty does apply and discuss Privette, it also discusses general principals of liability of a hirer of an independent contractor.

Total Investment Company, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th 721, the Court of Appeal held that a property owner is vicariously liable for the act of its independent contractor, regardless of its own responsibility for the act. “[T]he 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.

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.]

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.

PRIVETTE DOCTRINE Ordinarily, the person hiring an independent contractor is not liable to the contractor's employees for workplace injuries. The independent contractor's employer's liability for such injuries is limited by workers' compensation, as is the liability of the party who hired the contractor. ( Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693, 700-02; Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1244-1245; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.

[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.’”

“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. (Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 728 citing Oslon v. Kilstofte and Vosejpka, Inc., (1971) 327 F.Supp. 583, 587.) An employer that provides workers’ compensation coverage has no further liability.

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.

OPPOSITION Plaintiff contends that Defendant is liable for Hernandezs negligence based on statutorily imposed liability on transportation network companies (TNC) and charter party carriers because Defendant is a TNC/charter party carrier subject to liability for driver negligence under Public Utilities Code section 5354, which applies even if Hernandez is considered an independent contractor under Proposition 22.

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].)

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.

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.

Fillner Const., Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 518, 528.); (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.)

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.]

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.

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.

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.)

PRIVETTE DOCTRINE Ordinarily, the person hiring an independent contractor is not liable to the contractor's employees for workplace injuries. The independent contractor's employer's liability for such injuries is limited by workers' compensation, as is the liability of the party who hired the contractor. ( Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693, 700-02; Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1244-1245; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

Toland , supra , 18 Cal.4th at p. 268 [rejecting a rule that would impose liability based on a hirer's superior knowledge of the risk[s] of the work because the rule would not be amenable to summary judgment]; see also id. at pp. 275276 (conc. & dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) The question of whether the independent contractor, in hindsight, could have adopted reasonable safety precautions to protect against a known hazard will almost always encompass disputed issues of material fact.

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.

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].)

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.)

(“Defendant”), raising causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff was an employee of CES Cleaning Contractors (“CES”), an independent contractor, and he was cleaning a bacon slicer at Defendant’s meat processing facility in Manteca on November 5, 2015, when he suffered severe injury to his hand (the blade on the slicer spun for one or two seconds while his hands were near it).

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.

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

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.

Thus, the vicarious liability and direct negligent supervision claims must be examined within the context of Simeone as an independent contractor. Regarding vicarious liability, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for his employee's torts committed within the scope of the employment. (Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 962, 967.)

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.)

This rule is often expressed in the shorthand phrase ... there can be no indemnity without liability. [Citation.] ( Centex Homes v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1099.) AHS contends under the Equitable Indemnity cause of action AHS cannot be found liable for Plaintiffs injuries. AHS hired YH HVAC as an independent contractor, and under the Privette doctrine the hirer of an independent contractor is not liable for an injury sustained by the independent contractors employee.

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.

Under Privette, generally, one who hires an independent contractor is not liable to third parties for physical injuries caused by the contractor's negligence. The idea is that it would be unfair to impose liability on the hirer when the one primarily responsible for the injuries is limited to providing workers' compensation. (Toland v. Sunland Housing (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253.) There is an exception to the general rule.

Such a duty cannot be avoided by entrusting it to an independent contractor. ( Felmlee v. Falcon Cable TV (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1036.) Non-delegable duties may arise when a statute provides specific safeguards or precautions to insure the safety of others. [Citations.] ( Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661, 671672.) For example, [a] landlord cannot escape liability for failure to maintain elevators in a safe condition by delegating such duty to an independent contractor.

Such a duty cannot be avoided by entrusting it to an independent contractor. ( Felmlee v. Falcon Cable TV (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1036.) Non-delegable duties may arise when a statute provides specific safeguards or precautions to insure the safety of others. [Citations.] ( Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661, 671672.) For example, [a] landlord cannot escape liability for failure to maintain elevators in a safe condition by delegating such duty to an independent contractor.

The tort law duty to ensure workplace safety for employees of an independent contractor, which only exists because of the work for which the hirer contracted with the contractor, does not fall within the nondelegable duties. (Seabright Ins. Co. v. U.S. airways, Inc., supra, at 603.) The Privette Doctrine exception under for premises liability is not present here.

The tort law duty to ensure workplace safety for employees of an independent contractor, which only exists because of the work for which the hirer contracted with the contractor, does not fall within the nondelegable duties. (Seabright Ins. Co. v. U.S. airways, Inc., supra, at 603.) The Privette Doctrine exception under for premises liability is not present here.

The tort law duty to ensure workplace safety for employees of an independent contractor, which only exists because of the work for which the hirer contracted with the contractor, does not fall within the nondelegable duties. (Seabright Ins. Co. v. U.S. airways, Inc., supra, at 603.) The Privette Doctrine exception under for premises liability is not present here.

The tort law duty to ensure workplace safety for employees of an independent contractor, which only exists because of the work for which the hirer contracted with the contractor, does not fall within the nondelegable duties. (Seabright Ins. Co. v. U.S. airways, Inc., supra, at 603.) The Privette Doctrine exception under for premises liability is not present here.

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.

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.

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].)

Assuming the facts alleged in the FAC are true, as the Court must do on a demurrer, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that she is an independent contractor. Whether Plaintiff is actually an independent contractor, or an employee subject to workers compensation, is a factual question to be resolved at later stages of the litigation. (See Global Hawk Ins. Co. v. Le, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 603 [whether one is an employee or independent contractor is usually a question of fact].)

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.

Privette Doctrine Ordinarily, the person hiring an independent contractor is not liable to the contractor's employees for workplace injuries. The independent contractor's employer's liability for such injuries is limited by workers' compensation, as is the liability of the party who hired the contractor. ( Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693, 700-02; Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1244-1245; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.

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.

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.

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. Defendant City argues neither its employees or its independent contractor, Burns Pacific, would have been liable for its discretionary decisions in trimming the trees pursuant to Government Code §820.2.

However, the court recognized that creating an absolute or non-delegable duty for housing discrimination claims constituted an impermissible extension of vicarious liability rules, nothing that the statute and legislative history say nothing about extending vicarious liability in this manner.

“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.)

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.

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.)

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.

The motor carrier who was acting through an independent contractor was Phoenix, not LTS. (LTSs CoE, Ex. E; Villareal Decl., ¶ 17.) Nevertheless, LTS owned the vehicle for liability purposes under Vehicle Code section 17150. A gap exists in the cited authorities between a companys liability for an independent contractor it hired and that companys liability for an independent contractor whom a vehicles ostensible purchaser hired when the company did not perfect the sale.

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.)

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.]

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.

Bluestar, however, should provide further responses to Nos. 10 and 30-33, as the requests do not require an employee versus independent contractor response. The term “LIABILITY PERIOD” is simply defined as “the period from November 2013 through on or about January 2016” and does not infer liability. Further verified responses to these requests are to be served within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is declined as the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

DISCUSSION The general ruleto which there are numerous exceptionsis that the hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to third parties for the contractor's negligence. ( Millsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 430.) Whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is ordinarily a question of fact but if from all the facts only one inference may be drawn it is a question of law. ( Id. at 431.)

Maersk Agency next contends that it is insulated from liability on the basis that the evidence supports a finding that CITI was an independent contractor. An independent contractor determination is significant, because “’[a]t 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. [Citations.]

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.

The court in McKown also set forth factors to consider when determining hirer liability. “For the same reason, when a hirer of an independent contractor, by negligently furnishing unsafe equipment to the contractor, affirmatively contributes to the injury of an employee of the contractor, the hirer should be liable to the employee for the consequences of the hirer's own negligence.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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 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.]

Privette Doctrine Ordinarily, the person hiring an independent contractor is not liable to the contractor's employees for workplace injuries.¿ The independent contractor's employer's liability for such injuries is limited by workers' compensation, as is the liability of the party who hired the contractor.¿ ( Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693, 700-02; Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1244-1245; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.

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.

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.

Vicarious Liability Gov. Code § 815.4 Gov. Code § 815.4 states in relevant part: 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.

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.)

General Law Concerning Liability of Hirers to Employees of Independent Contractors Causes of action available to an injured employee of an independent contractor against the hirer of that contractor (i.e., the general contractor, owner, developer, etc.) have been severely limited. Vicarious liability-based causes of action or theories are precluded. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198.

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. ..

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.]

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?

Privette recognized that the 'principal' who hires an independent contractor should be subject to no greater liability 'than its [independent contractor] agent,' .... [Citation.] Thus, Privette did not foreclose the possibility that the principal could be subject to the same, less, or no liability compared to the independent contractor. Privette made clear that the doctrine of peculiar risk is founded on principles of equity and public policy. [Citations.]

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.