SeaBright Insurance v. US Airways, Inc.

*594 Opinion

Generally, when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ] (Privette).) Here, we consider whether the Privette rule applies when the party that hired the contractor (the hirer) failed to comply with workplace safety requirements concerning the precise subject matter of the contract, and the injury is alleged to have occurred as a consequence of that failure. We hold that the Privette rule does apply in that circumstance.

By hiring an independent contractor, the hirer implicitly delegates to the contractor any tort law duty it owes to the contractor’s employees to ensure the safety of the specific workplace that is the subject of the contract. That implicit delegation includes any tort law duty the hirer owes to the contractor’s employees to comply with applicable statutory or regulatory safety requirements. 1 Such delegation does not include the tort law duty the hirer owes to its own employees to comply with the same safety requirements, but under the definition of “employer” that applies…

I agree with the majority that defendant US Airways, Inc., is entitled to summary judgment. I do not agree with the majority’s reasoning.

I

We originally granted review to resolve a conflict between various divisions of the Court of Appeal concerning nondelegable duties. Decisions of this court beginning with Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ] (Privette) generally prevent employees who are injured at work from suing the person who hired their employer,* 1 subject to certain exceptions. 2 Under one of those exceptions, liability can still exist when the injury was caused by the hirer’s breach of a nondelegable duty articulated in a safety statute or regulation. 3 Courts have differed, however, on the question whether liability can be predicated simply on the hirer’s passive omission to comply with such duty, or whether liability also requires a showing that the hirer made some additional, affirmative contribution to the injury. 4 The former view is somewhat closer to strict liability, the latter less so. It was to resolve this conflict that we granted review.

*605 The Court of Appeal, ostensibly taking the former view but…

Hodson & Mullin, Samuel C. Mullin; O'Mara & Padilla and Michael D. Padilla for Intervener and Appellant.

Dimalanta Clark, Lee W. Clark, Lisa A. Lenoci; Kenney & Markowitz, Stephan E. Kyle, Kymberly E. Speer and Elizabeth D. Rhodes for Defendant and Respondent.

Archer Norris, Gary Watt; and Nick Cammarota for The California Building Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad and Stephen E. Norris for Fillner Construction, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney and William A. Munoz for Air Transport Association of America, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

KENNARD, J.—

Generally, when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work. ( Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ] ( Privette ).) Here, we consider whether the Privette rule applies when the party that hired the contractor (the hirer) failed to comply with workplace safety requirements concerning the precise subject matter of the contract,…