In 2006, F. corporation was hired as a general contractor on a project at a job site. F corp. in turn hired L company, which hired P Construction to install a canopy for the project. In order to complete the job, P hired Mr. T to erect the canopy. Mr. T feel into one of the uncovered holes which had been dug at the canopy site by F corp. or one of F's subcontractors. Mr. T sustained injuries from the fall and filed suit alleging negligence and premises liability. F. corp. denied all claims and brought a motion for summary judgment, which motion was granted by the trial court. The trial court found that F. corp. did not owe a duty of care to Mr. T as it was established in Privette v. Superior Court that a hirer of a contractor owes no duty of care to the contractor's injured employee because the emplyee has a remedy through worker's compensation. The case of Michael v. Denbeste Transportation Inc. expanded the Privette rationale to include independent contractors.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded back to the trial court. The Privette rule was based on the fact of an employee being entitled to workers' compensation was limited to that remedy. The employee may not seek recovery from the hirer of his or her employer for reasons of public policy. The Court of Appeals determined that Michael was an improper expansion of the Privette rule, as an independent contractor has no access to worker's compensation and as such would be barred from any kind of remedy for his or her injuries. The Court of Appeals found that, as an independent contractor, Mr. T did not fall within the class of employees included with in the Privette rule.
Contact our Santa Ana personal injury attorneys today!
Please fill out the form and someone will be in touch with you shortly.
Lunetto & Hegel
Attorneys at Law
2000 East Fourth Street
Suite 120
Santa Ana, California 92705
PERSONAL INJURY: