Preview
Jason A. Helsel, #214992 E-FILED
Mark A. Vogt, #240949 3/6/2019 9:05 AM
FOWLER |
HELSEL l
VOGT FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1705 L Street
By: A. Rodriguez, Deputy
Fresno, California 93721
Tel: (559) 283-8091
Fax: (559) 283-8415
Attorneys for Plaintiff, OSCAR MURRIETA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
OSCAR MURRIETA, Case No. 19CECG00802
10 '
P l amt'ff,
l
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
11
v.
NEGLIGENCE; PREMISES LIABILITY
12
JOSHUA S. LEHRMAN, an individual;
13
TAMARA D. LEHRMAN, an individual;
14 BARTEL CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-20,
15 inclusive,
16
Defendants.
l7
18
19
20 Plaintiff OSCAR MURRIETA alleges as follows:
21 THE PARTIES
22 1. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff OSCAR MURRIETA (hereinafter the
23 “Plaintift") is and was an individual residing in Fresno County, California. Plaintiff is a
24 handyman and construction worker who is,at times, hired to perform construction-like activities
25 on both residential and commercial structures including painting the exterior and/or interior of
26 such buildings.
27 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned
28 herein, defendants JOSHUA S. LEHRMAN and TAMARA D. LEHRMAN (hereinafter
.1.
Complaint for Damages
collectively referred to as the “Lehrman Defendants”) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, were individuals residing in Fresno County, California. Plaintiff is further
informed and believes that, at all relevant times to this action, the Lehman Defendants and Does
1though 10 were the owners of that certain real property located at 11152 Smith Ave., Reedley,
California 93654 (hereinafier, the “Premises”) which including a a two-story single family
dwelling.
3. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times
mentioned herein, the Lehrman Defendants owned, operated, possessed, and otherwise
controlled the Premises.
10 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned
ll herein, Defendant BARTEL CONSTRUCTION, INC., (hereinafter “Defendant Bartel
12 Construction”) and DOES 16-20, itsaffiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, representatives,
13 agents, alter egos, predecessors, successors, or assigns, is, and at all times mentioned was, a
l4 corporation licensed to do business and doing business in California with its principal place of
15 business at 425 10 Rd. 48, Reedley, California 93654. Plaintiff is further informed and believes
l6 and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, this defendant was and is a general
l7 contractor engaged in the business of both commercial and residential construction and home
18 improvement. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel
l9 Construction and allof its employees, affiliates, subcontractors, and materialman, at all relevant
20 times alleged herein, were hired and performed work at the specific request of the Lchrman
21 Defendants 0n the Premises.
22 5. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel
23 Construction, with full knowledge by the Lehrman Defendants, hired subcontractors,
24 materialmen, and other persons and/or entities to assist them in performing work on the Premises
25 as requested by the Lehrman Defendants. Such persons and/or entities performed work at the
26 specific direction of Defendant Bartel Construction.
27 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
28 of defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said
-2-
Complaint forDamagm
defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint when
the true names and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and‘believes, and
thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for
the occurrences herein alleged, and said defendants negligently acted or failed to act, which
negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries as alleged herein. Plaintiff is uncertain as to
the manner or function of said defendants, and pray leave to amend this Complaint to insert
therein the true names, capacities, functions, occupations and businesses of said defendants when
the same are ascertained.
7. Plaintiff knows the identities of DOES 16 through 20 inclusive, believes they have
10 damaged him, but is unaware of their capacity, whether individual, corporate, or associate, or
11 conduct, and therefore sues them fictitiously. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when he has
12 knowledge of facts indicating the true nature of the capacity or conduct of these fictitiously
13 named defendants with regard to the events described in this complaint.
14 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, each
15 of the defendants, whether named or fictitious, was the agent or employee of each of the other
l6 defendants, and in doing the things alleged to have been done in this complaint, acted within the
17 course, scope, or under the authority 0f his or her agency, employment, or representative capacity
18 of, or with consent or ratification by, the other co-defendants, and each ofthem.
19 BACKGROUND FACTS
20 9. In or around May of 201 8, the Lehrman Defendants hired Defendant Bartel
21 Construction to provide construction and home remodeling services on the Premises including a
22 full painting of the exterior and a new roof.
23 10. A part ofthc job duties Defendant Bartel Construction was hired to perform involved
24 the complete repair and/or remodel of the roof including an installation of suitable underlayment
25 and shingles. In or around May of201 8, Defendant Bartel Construction and/or DOES 16 through
26 20 removed the old roofing materials and installed “roofing underlayment” in preparation for the
27 laying of shingles over the top.
28 ///
-3-
Complaint forDamages
11. While the roof construction was ongoing and not yet completed, Defendant Bartel
Construction requested workers including Plaintiff who were hired by Defendant Bartel
Construction to begin an exterior painting job of protruding structures that required access to and
walking along the incomplete roof.
12. On May 22, 2018, Plaintiff was among those workers who were directed to paint
portions of the Premises which required standing and walking on the incomplete roof. At the
specific direction of Defendant Bartel Construction and with knowledge of the Lehrman
Defendants, Plaintiff placed a construction ladder along the side of the Premises and climbed
onto the roof. While on the roof, Plaintiff was ordered to paint the awning-type structures 0n the
10 rooftop of the‘Premises. Plaintiff was given no warnings as to the roof’s condition or any safety
ll equipment.
12 13. Plaintiff was moving along the roof when the underlayment became slippery and
l3 unstable causing his back foot to come out from underneath him and send Plaintiff tumbling off
14 the roof over ten feet to the ground below. Plaintiff impacted the ground in an awkward stance
15 on both of his heels/ankles causing excruciating pain.
16 l4. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, walking along an unfinished roof consisting of recently
17 installed underlayment is a dangerous condition because the material offers little to no traction
18 and becomes increasingly slippery in the hot conditions such as those existing on the day of the
19 incident. The dangerous condition and incomplete status of the roof caused Plaintiff to fall and
20 resulted in serious inj uriesto Plaintiff, including but not limited to multiple fiactures, lacerations,
21 and bruising. In fact, Plaintiffs heels and feet shattered at impact.
22 15. Prior to this incident, Defendant Bartel Construction knew or should have known that
23 having any workers, including Plaintiff, accessing and traversing a roof that was in disrepair or,
24 at the very least incomplete, was a safety hazard with itspotential to cause bodily harm given its
25 unstable, slippery nature and length of a potential fallto the ground below.
26 l6. There were no safety mechanisms, harnesses, foot stops, anchors, or other materials
27 on the roof that would have made standing and/or traversing itsafe for persons such as Plaintiff.
28 ///
-4-
Complaint for Damages
17. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that notwithstanding
having knowledge of the dangerous condition of the roof, Plaintiff was specifically instructed by
Defendant Bartel Construction with knowledge of the Lehrman Defendants to access the roof
and complete a painting job on the Premises.
FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION
Premises Liability
(Against the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction and Does 1-20)
18. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 to 17 herein as though fully set forth.
10 l9. At all relevant times mentioned herein, the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel
ll Construction and Does l through 10, as owners and/or occupiers ofthe Premises, were in control
12 and/or possession of the Premises and had a duty of care to keep the Premises in a reasonably
13 safe condition. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and Does 1 through
14 20 further had a duty t0 use reasonable care to discover and/or prevent any unsafe conditions on
15 the Premises during construction and to restrict access to portions 0f the Premises that were
16 unsafe, incomplete, unstable, or in disrepair that could reasonably be expected to harm others
l7 including Plaintiff.
18 20. As owners and occupiers, the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction
l9 and DOES 1 through 20 each had a funher duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury
20 due to any unsafe condition on the Premises that were discovered by periodic inspections of the
21 Premises including those situations in which industry knowledge and experience would have
22 identified the known risks associated with the unsafe/unstable conditions existing on the roof
23 during construction.
24 21. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 1 through 20
25 are under a duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, use, maintenance, construction, or
26 repair ofthe Premises in order to avoid exposing workers, including Plaintiff, to an unreasonable
27 risk of harm. Such a duty exists whether the risk of harm iscaused bylthe natural condition of
28 the Premises or by an artificial condition created on the Premises.
-5-
Complaint forDamages
22. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 1 through 20
are further under a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the roof and construction of the
Premises in a safe condition and discovery and correct or warn pgrsons/workers on the Premises
of reasonably anticipated dangerous conditions such as unstable, unsteady, and/or slippery roof
conditions. Indeed, a worker such as Plaintiff has a right to assume that the areas he is required
to access to perform his job duties are reasonably safe unless there are indications or warnings
to the contrary.
23. Plaintiff further alleges that prior to May 22, 2018, Defendant Bartel Construction,
the Lehrman Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, knew or had reason to know that the
10 incomplete construction of the roof in which only the underlayment material was installed
11 provided an unsafe, unstable, and dangerous platform to stand or move around on for any worker
12 including Plaintiff and could become extremely slippery in the summer heat leading to a
13 likelihood of a person falling from the roof onto the ground below.
14 24. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 1 through 20
15 breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, use, maintenance, or repair of
16 the Premises in order to avoid exposing workers to an unreasonable risk of harm by instructing
17 and/or requiring Plaintiff to access the roof while the roof was in an incomplete, unsteady, and
18 unsafe manner in order to prematurely paint areas of the Premises.
19 25. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of The Lehrman Defendants,
20 Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES l through 20’s breach of their duty of care to repair,
21 replace, or prevent access to an unsafe condition on the Premises, Plaintifi‘ suffered severe
22 injuries. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of The Lehrman
23 Defendants, Defendant Bartel ConstructiOn, and DOES 1 through 20’s breach of their duty of
24 care to repair, replace, or prevent access to an unsafe condition on the Premises, Plaintiff has
25 incurred special damages for past and future medical and incidental expenses and past and future
26 general damages in sums according to proof at trial.
27 WHEREFORE, Plaintifi‘ prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
28 ///
-6-
Complaint for Damages
SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION
Negligence
(Against Defendant Bartel Construction and Does 16-20)
26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 to 25 herein as though fully set forth.
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel
Construction and DOES 16 through 20 each had a duty of care to act in a diligent, attentive, and
careful manner when they installed, repaired, and/or constructed the roof on the Premises and to
take reasonable precautions to prevent injury due to any unsafe condition on the Premises that
10 were discovered by periodic inspections 0f the Premises including those situations in which
11 industry knowledge and experience would have identified the known risks associated with the
12 unsafe/unstable conditions existing on the roof during construction.
13 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel
l4 Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 are under a duty to exercise reasonable care in the use,
15 maintenance, construction, and/or repair of the Premises in order to avoid exposing workers,
l6 including Plaintiff, to an unreasonable risk of harm by either restricting access to an unstable,
l7 unsafe, and slippery roof which remained in an incomplete state with only the underlayment
18 installed or providing safety mechanisms including harnesses, foot stops, and other anchors to
19 prevent a worker fiom slipping and falling off the incomplete roof and onto the ground below.
20 29. Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 are further under a duty to
21 exercise reasonable care in keeping the roof and construction of the Premises in a safe condition
22 and discovery and correct or warn persons/workers on the Premises of reasonably anticipated
23 dangerous conditions such as unstable, unsteady, and/or slippery roof conditions. Indeed, a
24 worker such as Plaintiff has a right to assume that the areas he is required to access to perform
25 his job duties are reasonably safe unless there are indications or warnings to the contrary.
26 30. Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 breached their duty of care
27 when they requested and/or required workers including Plaintiff to stand upon and traverse the
28 unstable, incomplete, slippery, and unsafe roof with only the underlayment installed during a hot
-7-
Complaint for Damages
summer day to paint rooftop areas of the Premises before itwas safe to do so. Defendant Banel
Construction and DOES 16 through 20 further breached their duty of care by failing to have
prevent access to the incomplete and unsafe roof while itremained in a dangerous condition
and/or failing to provide warnings and safety equipment such as harnesses, foot stops, 0r other
anchors that would prevent one from slipping or becoming unsteady and falling from the rooftop.
31. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel
Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 knew or had reason to know that having persons access
the roof with only the underlayment installed could result in a person, such as Plaintiff, from
losing his balance and falling from the roof onto the ground below causing serious injury.
10 32. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bartel
ll Construction, and DOES 16 through 20’s breach of their duty of care t0 repair, replace, warn 0f,
12 or prevent access to an unsafe condition on the Premises, Plaintiff has incurred special damages
l3 for past and future medical and incidental expenses and past and future general damages in sums
l4 according to proof at trial.
15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays forjudgment as hereinafter set forth.
16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays forjudgment against the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant
18 Bartel Construction and Does 1 through 20, and each of them, as follows:
19 1. For special damages to be proven at trial;
20 2. For general damages to be proven at trial;and
21 3. For such further and other relief the Court may deem just and proper.
22
23 Dated: March .5 ,
2019 FOWLER |
HELSEL |
VOGT
24
25
V
.
, Sq.
26
Attorneys for Plaintiff, OSCAR MURRIETA
27
28
-3-
Complaint for Damages
Preview
Jason A. Helsel, #214992 E-FILED Mark A. Vogt, #240949 3/6/2019 9:05 AM FOWLER | HELSEL l VOGT FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1705 L Street By: A. Rodriguez, Deputy Fresno, California 93721 Tel: (559) 283-8091 Fax: (559) 283-8415 Attorneys for Plaintiff, OSCAR MURRIETA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO OSCAR MURRIETA, Case No. 19CECG00802 10 ' P l amt'ff, l COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 11 v. NEGLIGENCE; PREMISES LIABILITY 12 JOSHUA S. LEHRMAN, an individual; 13 TAMARA D. LEHRMAN, an individual; 14 BARTEL CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-20, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. l7 18 19 20 Plaintiff OSCAR MURRIETA alleges as follows: 21 THE PARTIES 22 1. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff OSCAR MURRIETA (hereinafter the 23 “Plaintift") is and was an individual residing in Fresno County, California. Plaintiff is a 24 handyman and construction worker who is,at times, hired to perform construction-like activities 25 on both residential and commercial structures including painting the exterior and/or interior of 26 such buildings. 27 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned 28 herein, defendants JOSHUA S. LEHRMAN and TAMARA D. LEHRMAN (hereinafter .1. Complaint for Damages collectively referred to as the “Lehrman Defendants”) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, were individuals residing in Fresno County, California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that, at all relevant times to this action, the Lehman Defendants and Does 1though 10 were the owners of that certain real property located at 11152 Smith Ave., Reedley, California 93654 (hereinafier, the “Premises”) which including a a two-story single family dwelling. 3. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, the Lehrman Defendants owned, operated, possessed, and otherwise controlled the Premises. 10 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned ll herein, Defendant BARTEL CONSTRUCTION, INC., (hereinafter “Defendant Bartel 12 Construction”) and DOES 16-20, itsaffiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, representatives, 13 agents, alter egos, predecessors, successors, or assigns, is, and at all times mentioned was, a l4 corporation licensed to do business and doing business in California with its principal place of 15 business at 425 10 Rd. 48, Reedley, California 93654. Plaintiff is further informed and believes l6 and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, this defendant was and is a general l7 contractor engaged in the business of both commercial and residential construction and home 18 improvement. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel l9 Construction and allof its employees, affiliates, subcontractors, and materialman, at all relevant 20 times alleged herein, were hired and performed work at the specific request of the Lchrman 21 Defendants 0n the Premises. 22 5. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel 23 Construction, with full knowledge by the Lehrman Defendants, hired subcontractors, 24 materialmen, and other persons and/or entities to assist them in performing work on the Premises 25 as requested by the Lehrman Defendants. Such persons and/or entities performed work at the 26 specific direction of Defendant Bartel Construction. 27 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 28 of defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said -2- Complaint forDamagm defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint when the true names and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and‘believes, and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and said defendants negligently acted or failed to act, which negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries as alleged herein. Plaintiff is uncertain as to the manner or function of said defendants, and pray leave to amend this Complaint to insert therein the true names, capacities, functions, occupations and businesses of said defendants when the same are ascertained. 7. Plaintiff knows the identities of DOES 16 through 20 inclusive, believes they have 10 damaged him, but is unaware of their capacity, whether individual, corporate, or associate, or 11 conduct, and therefore sues them fictitiously. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when he has 12 knowledge of facts indicating the true nature of the capacity or conduct of these fictitiously 13 named defendants with regard to the events described in this complaint. 14 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, each 15 of the defendants, whether named or fictitious, was the agent or employee of each of the other l6 defendants, and in doing the things alleged to have been done in this complaint, acted within the 17 course, scope, or under the authority 0f his or her agency, employment, or representative capacity 18 of, or with consent or ratification by, the other co-defendants, and each ofthem. 19 BACKGROUND FACTS 20 9. In or around May of 201 8, the Lehrman Defendants hired Defendant Bartel 21 Construction to provide construction and home remodeling services on the Premises including a 22 full painting of the exterior and a new roof. 23 10. A part ofthc job duties Defendant Bartel Construction was hired to perform involved 24 the complete repair and/or remodel of the roof including an installation of suitable underlayment 25 and shingles. In or around May of201 8, Defendant Bartel Construction and/or DOES 16 through 26 20 removed the old roofing materials and installed “roofing underlayment” in preparation for the 27 laying of shingles over the top. 28 /// -3- Complaint forDamages 11. While the roof construction was ongoing and not yet completed, Defendant Bartel Construction requested workers including Plaintiff who were hired by Defendant Bartel Construction to begin an exterior painting job of protruding structures that required access to and walking along the incomplete roof. 12. On May 22, 2018, Plaintiff was among those workers who were directed to paint portions of the Premises which required standing and walking on the incomplete roof. At the specific direction of Defendant Bartel Construction and with knowledge of the Lehrman Defendants, Plaintiff placed a construction ladder along the side of the Premises and climbed onto the roof. While on the roof, Plaintiff was ordered to paint the awning-type structures 0n the 10 rooftop of the‘Premises. Plaintiff was given no warnings as to the roof’s condition or any safety ll equipment. 12 13. Plaintiff was moving along the roof when the underlayment became slippery and l3 unstable causing his back foot to come out from underneath him and send Plaintiff tumbling off 14 the roof over ten feet to the ground below. Plaintiff impacted the ground in an awkward stance 15 on both of his heels/ankles causing excruciating pain. 16 l4. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, walking along an unfinished roof consisting of recently 17 installed underlayment is a dangerous condition because the material offers little to no traction 18 and becomes increasingly slippery in the hot conditions such as those existing on the day of the 19 incident. The dangerous condition and incomplete status of the roof caused Plaintiff to fall and 20 resulted in serious inj uriesto Plaintiff, including but not limited to multiple fiactures, lacerations, 21 and bruising. In fact, Plaintiffs heels and feet shattered at impact. 22 15. Prior to this incident, Defendant Bartel Construction knew or should have known that 23 having any workers, including Plaintiff, accessing and traversing a roof that was in disrepair or, 24 at the very least incomplete, was a safety hazard with itspotential to cause bodily harm given its 25 unstable, slippery nature and length of a potential fallto the ground below. 26 l6. There were no safety mechanisms, harnesses, foot stops, anchors, or other materials 27 on the roof that would have made standing and/or traversing itsafe for persons such as Plaintiff. 28 /// -4- Complaint for Damages 17. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that notwithstanding having knowledge of the dangerous condition of the roof, Plaintiff was specifically instructed by Defendant Bartel Construction with knowledge of the Lehrman Defendants to access the roof and complete a painting job on the Premises. FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION Premises Liability (Against the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction and Does 1-20) 18. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 17 herein as though fully set forth. 10 l9. At all relevant times mentioned herein, the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel ll Construction and Does l through 10, as owners and/or occupiers ofthe Premises, were in control 12 and/or possession of the Premises and had a duty of care to keep the Premises in a reasonably 13 safe condition. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and Does 1 through 14 20 further had a duty t0 use reasonable care to discover and/or prevent any unsafe conditions on 15 the Premises during construction and to restrict access to portions 0f the Premises that were 16 unsafe, incomplete, unstable, or in disrepair that could reasonably be expected to harm others l7 including Plaintiff. 18 20. As owners and occupiers, the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction l9 and DOES 1 through 20 each had a funher duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury 20 due to any unsafe condition on the Premises that were discovered by periodic inspections of the 21 Premises including those situations in which industry knowledge and experience would have 22 identified the known risks associated with the unsafe/unstable conditions existing on the roof 23 during construction. 24 21. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 1 through 20 25 are under a duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, use, maintenance, construction, or 26 repair ofthe Premises in order to avoid exposing workers, including Plaintiff, to an unreasonable 27 risk of harm. Such a duty exists whether the risk of harm iscaused bylthe natural condition of 28 the Premises or by an artificial condition created on the Premises. -5- Complaint forDamages 22. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 1 through 20 are further under a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the roof and construction of the Premises in a safe condition and discovery and correct or warn pgrsons/workers on the Premises of reasonably anticipated dangerous conditions such as unstable, unsteady, and/or slippery roof conditions. Indeed, a worker such as Plaintiff has a right to assume that the areas he is required to access to perform his job duties are reasonably safe unless there are indications or warnings to the contrary. 23. Plaintiff further alleges that prior to May 22, 2018, Defendant Bartel Construction, the Lehrman Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, knew or had reason to know that the 10 incomplete construction of the roof in which only the underlayment material was installed 11 provided an unsafe, unstable, and dangerous platform to stand or move around on for any worker 12 including Plaintiff and could become extremely slippery in the summer heat leading to a 13 likelihood of a person falling from the roof onto the ground below. 14 24. The Lehrman Defendants, Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 1 through 20 15 breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, use, maintenance, or repair of 16 the Premises in order to avoid exposing workers to an unreasonable risk of harm by instructing 17 and/or requiring Plaintiff to access the roof while the roof was in an incomplete, unsteady, and 18 unsafe manner in order to prematurely paint areas of the Premises. 19 25. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of The Lehrman Defendants, 20 Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES l through 20’s breach of their duty of care to repair, 21 replace, or prevent access to an unsafe condition on the Premises, Plaintifi‘ suffered severe 22 injuries. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of The Lehrman 23 Defendants, Defendant Bartel ConstructiOn, and DOES 1 through 20’s breach of their duty of 24 care to repair, replace, or prevent access to an unsafe condition on the Premises, Plaintiff has 25 incurred special damages for past and future medical and incidental expenses and past and future 26 general damages in sums according to proof at trial. 27 WHEREFORE, Plaintifi‘ prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 28 /// -6- Complaint for Damages SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION Negligence (Against Defendant Bartel Construction and Does 16-20) 26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 25 herein as though fully set forth. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel Construction and DOES 16 through 20 each had a duty of care to act in a diligent, attentive, and careful manner when they installed, repaired, and/or constructed the roof on the Premises and to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury due to any unsafe condition on the Premises that 10 were discovered by periodic inspections 0f the Premises including those situations in which 11 industry knowledge and experience would have identified the known risks associated with the 12 unsafe/unstable conditions existing on the roof during construction. 13 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel l4 Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 are under a duty to exercise reasonable care in the use, 15 maintenance, construction, and/or repair of the Premises in order to avoid exposing workers, l6 including Plaintiff, to an unreasonable risk of harm by either restricting access to an unstable, l7 unsafe, and slippery roof which remained in an incomplete state with only the underlayment 18 installed or providing safety mechanisms including harnesses, foot stops, and other anchors to 19 prevent a worker fiom slipping and falling off the incomplete roof and onto the ground below. 20 29. Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 are further under a duty to 21 exercise reasonable care in keeping the roof and construction of the Premises in a safe condition 22 and discovery and correct or warn persons/workers on the Premises of reasonably anticipated 23 dangerous conditions such as unstable, unsteady, and/or slippery roof conditions. Indeed, a 24 worker such as Plaintiff has a right to assume that the areas he is required to access to perform 25 his job duties are reasonably safe unless there are indications or warnings to the contrary. 26 30. Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 breached their duty of care 27 when they requested and/or required workers including Plaintiff to stand upon and traverse the 28 unstable, incomplete, slippery, and unsafe roof with only the underlayment installed during a hot -7- Complaint for Damages summer day to paint rooftop areas of the Premises before itwas safe to do so. Defendant Banel Construction and DOES 16 through 20 further breached their duty of care by failing to have prevent access to the incomplete and unsafe roof while itremained in a dangerous condition and/or failing to provide warnings and safety equipment such as harnesses, foot stops, 0r other anchors that would prevent one from slipping or becoming unsteady and falling from the rooftop. 31. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Bartel Construction, and DOES 16 through 20 knew or had reason to know that having persons access the roof with only the underlayment installed could result in a person, such as Plaintiff, from losing his balance and falling from the roof onto the ground below causing serious injury. 10 32. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bartel ll Construction, and DOES 16 through 20’s breach of their duty of care t0 repair, replace, warn 0f, 12 or prevent access to an unsafe condition on the Premises, Plaintiff has incurred special damages l3 for past and future medical and incidental expenses and past and future general damages in sums l4 according to proof at trial. 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays forjudgment as hereinafter set forth. 16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays forjudgment against the Lehrman Defendants, Defendant 18 Bartel Construction and Does 1 through 20, and each of them, as follows: 19 1. For special damages to be proven at trial; 20 2. For general damages to be proven at trial;and 21 3. For such further and other relief the Court may deem just and proper. 22 23 Dated: March .5 , 2019 FOWLER | HELSEL | VOGT 24 25 V . , Sq. 26 Attorneys for Plaintiff, OSCAR MURRIETA 27 28 -3- Complaint for Damages