The Privette doctrine deals with whether an entity that hires an independent contractor can be liable for on-the-job injuries sustained by an independent contractor’s workers. In 1993, the California Supreme Court published Privette v Superior Court 5 Cal.4th 689. The Privette Doctrine creates an exception to the peculiar-risk doctrine, which states that an employer can be held vicariously responsible for damages caused by an independent contractor who gets hurt carelessly performing their job.
The Privette Doctrine, on the other hand, shields the hirer of an independent contractor from liability for the death or injury of an employee of the contractor. The hirer of an independent contractor is typically a home, or property owner. According to the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor automatically delegates responsibility to the contractor for the safety of the job site and the contracted workers.
Privette Doctrine Protection
The Privette Doctrine creates protection for property owners when a contracted worker is injured on their property. To invoke Privette Drive protection, a property owner must establish the following:
- The injured or deceased person was an independent contractor
- The property owner hired the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s employer directly or indirectly
An example of this scenario would be from Miller v. Roseville Lodge 1293. Roseville Lodge hired a contractor to move an ATM on its premises. The contractor appointed the plaintiff, Ricky Lee Miller Jr., to perform the work. Miller fell when he was on a scaffold and suffered injuries. The plaintiff attempted to sue the Roseville Lodge for damages but was unsuccessful because the work was appointed to the contracted company. Therefore, under the Privette Doctrine, the contracted company was responsible for Miller’s safety, not the property owner. So, in this case, Miller would only be able to recover damages through worker’s compensation provided by his employer.
Exceptions to the Privette Doctrine
Even though the Privette Doctrine acts as a shield for property owners, it does not make them immune from liability when a contracted employee or independent contractor suffers injuries on their property. One exception of the Privette Doctrine is if the property owner is directly careless and their careless actions, or failure to act, directly result in harm to another person. For example, if the plaintiff is able to cite a statute such as Cal-OSHA, which the hirer violated, then the property owner could be held liable under California Evidence Code 669 (a)(1).
Another exception to the Privette Doctrine is if a plaintiff can prove the landowner knew a dangerous condition existed on their property and the worker could not reasonably discover the dangerous condition. Also, the landowner would have to fail to warn the contractor of the dangerous condition. For example, if the air is contaminated with asbestos in a person’s attic. If a contractor is sent to do work up in the attic and suffers health problems, the property owner can be held liable for damages. This is due to the contracted worker being unable to reasonably know there is asbestos in the air.
A third exception to the Privette Drive exists if the property owner retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and carelessly performs an action, which leads to the worker’s injuries. For example, if the property owner gives the worker a damaged ladder to climb up on the roof and the worker suffers a horrific fall due to the ladder breaking while they’re on it. The direct carelessness of providing a broken ladder would prevent the property owner from citing the Privette Doctrine to shield themselves from liability.
Privette Doctrine and Worker’s Compensation Availability
It is important to note that the Privette Doctrine is based on the principle that worker’s compensation serves as enough coverage for injured employees in the California Worker’s Compensation Act, which states that all employees are automatically entitled to recover benefits for injuries arising out of an in the course of the employment. Workers’ compensation is made available to limit liability from hirers when tasking workers with dangerous work. Unlike premises liability lawsuits, with worker’s compensation, fault does not matter. An employee is entitled to worker’s compensation benefits regardless of fault. In the case that a worker’s employer is uninsured, then they may be able to hold the property owner responsible for hiring an uninsured contractor for dangerous work.
Contact a Personal Injury Lawyer in California
If you or a loved one have been injured at work, the personal injury attorneys at Maison Law are here to get you the compensation you need. Even though the Privette Doctrine may present some hurdles, if your injuries are a direct result of another person’s negligence, then you deserve to be fully compensated for your damages. For expert legal counsel, contact Maison Law for a free consultation and case evaluation. Our firm does not charge any upfront fees for our services and you won’t be charged a cent until we’ve successfully won your case.
