Ruiz
Ruiz v. Herman Weissker, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
McINTYRE, J.
The fundamental question presented in this case is whether the California Supreme Court’s analyses in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ] (Privette) and Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 , 38 P.3d 1081 ] (Hooker), which hold that a hirer of a subcontractor whose employee is injured on the job as a result of the subcontractor’s negligence is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for the employee’s injuries, also bars similar claims against the hirer’s agent. We conclude that the policy considerations relied on in Privette and Hooker are equally applicable to claims against the hirer’s agent and thus affirm the judgment entered in favor of the agent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2001, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) hired Herman Weissker, Inc. (HWI) as a contract administrator for its distribution line construction projects. Pursuant to its contract with SDG&E, HWI was responsible for reviewing plans to ensure proper planning and feasibility and for monitoring the construction work for safety and contract compliance.