McCarty

McCarty v. Department of Transportation

Good Law
164 Cal. App. 4th 955·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1039·79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 777·73 Cal. Comp. Cases 1036
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 10, 2008E040627California7,433 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

In Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 , 38 P.3d 1081 ], the California Supreme Court enunciated the “retained control” doctrine—that, as a matter of common law, one who hires an independent contractor may be liable for injuries to an employee of the independent contractor if the hirer not only retained control over safety conditions at the worksite, but also negligently exercised its retained control so as to affirmatively contribute to the employee’s injuries. (Id. at pp. 202, 209-210.) In Hooker, as here, the defendant was the State' of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—a public entity. Under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), “there is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; such liability is wholly statutory. [Citations.]” (In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659, 688 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 ]; see also Gov. Code, § 815.) Nevertheless, Hooker did not discuss what the statutory basis (if any) was for holding a public entity liable under the retained control doctrine. That task now falls to us.

Here, defendant Caltrans hired an independent contractor to…

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.