Bussard

Bussard v. Ings CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 4, 2013B244911California2,963 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Defendant and respondent Lloyd Ings is a retired telephone worker living in Simi Valley. He owns two triplexes in west Los Angeles to supplement his retirement income. Ings purchased one triplex in 1957 and the other in 1963. In 2009, the triplexes produced 75% of Ings‘s retirement income. Plaintiff and appellant Matthias Bussard was a former neighbor of Ings. They became friends in 1999. Bussard lost his job as a mortgage broker at Wells Fargo Bank in March 2009. In August, 2009, Ings agreed to pay Bussard $20 per hour to paint the eaves on one of the triplexes. On the first day of painting, Bussard walked backwards off the roof and sustained injuries. Bussard acknowledged there was nothing defective about the roof; he simply misjudged the size of it. Ings paid Bussard‘s medical bills for a period of time, but stopped when it became too expensive. Bussard then filed this lawsuit against Ings.

DISCUSSION

Bussard‘s complaint contained three causes of action: (1) premises liability; (2) general negligence; and (3) ―uninsured employer liability (Labor Code[,] § 3706 et seq.).‖ Ings filed a motion for summary judgment. Ings argued, in part, that he could not be liable…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.