The foreman then directed employee Jesus Contreras to carry 10 five-gallon buckets of hot tar up a ladder to the roof. When the gravel truck arrived, the crew moved the kettle and pumping device to make room for the truck.Īfter the gravel was deposited on the roof, crew members realized they needed 50 more gallons of tar to complete the job. Using a kettle and pumping device parked in a driveway next to the duplex, the roofing crew transported hot tar to the roof.
GIJIMA HIG COURT ZACC INSTALL
(hereafter Krause) to install a new tar and gravel roof on his duplex. Accordingly, we join the majority of jurisdictions in precluding such recovery under the doctrine of peculiar risk.įranklin Privette hired Jim Krause Roofing, Inc. Thus, when the contractor's failure to provide safe working conditions results in injury to the contractor's employee, additional recovery from the person who hired the contractor-a nonnegligent party-advances no societal interest that is not already served by the workers' compensation system. That statutory scheme, which affords compensation regardless of fault, advances the same policies that underlie the doctrine of peculiar risk. When an employee of the independent contractor hired to do dangerous work suffers a work-related injury, the employee is entitled to recovery under the state's workers' compensation system. Today, this court for the first time directly confronts this issue. But the decisions of this court by which the minority rule has become established in California have never addressed the potential conflict between the peculiar risk doctrine, as applied in favor of the contractor's employees, and the system of workers' compensation. A minority of jurisdictions, including California, have permitted such employees to seek recovery from the person who hired the contractor. Courts differ, however, on the propriety of extending the doctrine to the contractor's own employees. 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. 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. Cody and Richard Seltzer for Real Party in Interest. Baker as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. Hoeffner, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold and Frederick D. Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley, Wagner & Kane, Mark G. (Opinion by Kennard, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.) (Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent JESUS CONTRERAS, Real Party in Interest. Superior Court (Contreras) (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 854 P.2d 721įRANKLIN PRIVETTE, Petitioner, v.
0 kommentar(er)
