nondelegable duty rule in California

2022Rather, the duties serve goals such as placing responsibility on the entities “in the best position to ensure product safety,” where those in the production chain can “adjust the costs of liability” in their “continuing business relationship.” (Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 479 ; see Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 727 [“the nondelegable duty rule advances the same purposes as other forms of vicarious liability”].) Vandermark requires the conclusion that an “authorized dealer” acts as the manufacturer’s agent by allowing liability when the dealer “make[s] the fin

2021(Srithong v. Total Investment Co., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 727 .) Wildwood argues the nondelegable duty rule, as outlined above, does not apply to this case because the substance of plaintiffs’ claim does not involve harm caused by an unsafe condition of the real property in violation of Wildwood’s responsibility to maintain it, but rather it involves harm caused by the action of a contractor that negligently severed a gas line it was aware of.

2026The nondelegable duty exception When the hirer has a nondelegable duty, it cannot “evad[e] responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an 5 Here, Alliance failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance. 6 There are other exceptions, such as when the hirer “withhold[s] critical safety information” from the independent contractor (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 271 ), but these other exceptions are not at issue in this case. 11 independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” (SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) For a duty to be nondelegable, the duty must “preexis

2003Highway common carriers may not, therefore, insulate themselves from liability for negligence occurring in the conduct of their business by engaging independent contractors to transport freight for them.” (Eli v. Murphy, supra, 39 Cal.2d at pp. 599-601, fn. omitted.) 8 Snyder v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. In Snyder v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 793 [ 285 P.2d 912 ], the Supreme Court quoted at length from Eli v. Murphy, supra, 39 Cal.2d 598 , then expanded the nondelegable duty rule this way: “The rule of nondelegable duty has been applied to the maintenance of premises by a landl

2005Park said in a footnote that the case was not tried on a nondelegable duty theory, but rather on a theory that the railroad itself was negligent. ( Park, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 595, 609, fn. 12 .) Plaintiff applauds Park’s statement that the theory of nondelegable duties survives Privette , and plaintiff argues Sheeler v. Greystone Homes, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 908, 922 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 683 ], reached an erroneous, contrary conclusion by stating that the nondelegable duty rule is a form of vicarious liability (because it is not based on personal fault of the landowner who hired the contracto

2005Lange does not address section 424 in its respondent's brief on appeal. [12] Park, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 595 , 133 Cal. Rptr.2d 757 , was issued on May 9, 2003, after the trial court ruled in this case. [13] Park said in a footnote that the case was not tried on a nondelegable duty theory, but rather on a theory that the railroad itself was negligent. ( Park, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 595, 609, fn. 12 , 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 757 .) [14] Plaintiff applauds Park's statement that the theory of nondelegable duties survives Privette, and plaintiff argues Sheeler v. Greystone Homes, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.

2009One cannot escape this duty by entrusting it to an independent contractor.’ [Citation.] A nondelegable duty may arise when a statute or regulation requires specific safeguards or precautions to ensure others’ safety. [Citation.] Restatement Second of Torts, section 424, states the nondelegable duty rule as follows: ‘One who by statute or by administrative regulation is under a duty to provide specified safeguards or precautions for the safety of others is subject to liability to the others for whose protection the duty is imposed for harm caused by the failure of a contractor employed by him t

2009One cannot escape this duty by entrusting it to an independent contractor.’ [Citation.] A nondelegable duty may arise when a statute or regulation requires specific safeguards or precautions to ensure others’ safety. [Citation.] Restatement Second of Torts, section 424, states the nondelegable duty rule as follows: ‘One who by statute or by administrative regulation is under a duty to provide specified safeguards or precautions for the safety of others is subject to liability to the others for whose protection the duty is imposed for harm caused by the failure of a contractor employed by him t

2017(See, e.g., Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ] (Privette) [general common law rule of nonliability for negligence of an independent contractor is subject to exceptions so numerous as to render the rule a mere preface to the inventory of its *860 exceptions]; Kinney v. CSB Construction, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 28, 32 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 ] [same].) A company that hires an independent contractor can be held liable to third parties under the doctrine of peculiar risk (see Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 695-698 [reviewing history and ev

2017(See, e.g., Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ] (Privette) [general common law rule of nonliability for negligence of an independent contractor is subject to exceptions so numerous as to render the rule a mere preface to the inventory of its *860 exceptions]; Kinney v. CSB Construction, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 28, 32 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 ] [same].) A company that hires an independent contractor can be held liable to third parties under the doctrine of peculiar risk (see Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 695-698 [reviewing history and ev

2006(Id. at p. 614.) And the court in Sheeler v. Grey stone Homes, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 908 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 ] stated that “the nondelegable duty rule is incompatible with the limitations on hirer liability established in Privette and subsequent cases.” (Sheeler v. Greystone Homes, Inc., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 922 .) The policy in favor of a hirer’s delegation of responsibility is consistent with the policy underlying the workers’ compensation laws. “ ‘The fundamental policy underlying the workers’ compensation laws is that those hiring others to perform services should bear the ri

2006(Id. at p. 614.) And the court in Sheeler v. Grey stone Homes, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 908 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 ] stated that “the nondelegable duty rule is incompatible with the limitations on hirer liability established in Privette and subsequent cases.” (Sheeler v. Greystone Homes, Inc., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 922 .) The policy in favor of a hirer’s delegation of responsibility is consistent with the policy underlying the workers’ compensation laws. “ ‘The fundamental policy underlying the workers’ compensation laws is that those hiring others to perform services should bear the ri

2026The nondelegable duty exception When the hirer has a nondelegable duty, it cannot “evad[e] responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an 5 Here, Alliance failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance. 6 There are other exceptions, such as when the hirer “withhold[s] critical safety information” from the independent contractor (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 271 ), but these other exceptions are not at issue in this case. 11 independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” (SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) For a duty to be nondelegable, the duty must “preexis

2023(SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 601 .) The split was not resolved in either Sandoval or Gonzalez, neither of which involved the nondelegable duty exception.

2026The nondelegable duty exception When the hirer has a nondelegable duty, it cannot “evad[e] responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an 5 Here, Alliance failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance. 6 There are other exceptions, such as when the hirer “withhold[s] critical safety information” from the independent contractor (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 271 ), but these other exceptions are not at issue in this case. 11 independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” (SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) For a duty to be nondelegable, the duty must “preexis

2023Under the nondelegable duty doctrine . . . the carrier is treated in such cases as if it owned the truck and employed the driver for purposes of determining the carrier’s liability for the negligence of the subcontractor”]; Gamboa v. Conti Trucking (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 663, 665-666 ; Milsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 434 [acknowledging doctrine and discussing Murphy]; Rest.2d Torts, § 428 [“[a]n 12 The California Supreme Court in Eli v. Murphy, supra, 39 Cal.2d 598 stated: “The effectiveness of safety regulations is necessarily impaired if a carrier conducts its busin

2018Rather, the party charged with a nondelegable duty is 'held liable for the negligence of his [or her] agent, whether his [or her] agent was an employee or an independent contractor.' " ( Id. at p. 727, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , italics omitted.) Although the nondelegable duty doctrine may enable the injured employee of an independent contractor to sue the party who hired the independent contractor (see, e.g., Felmlee v. Falcon Cable TV (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1032 , 1034-1035, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 158 ), Serrano fails to explain how it applies here.

2018Rather, the party charged with a nondelegable duty is 'held liable for the negligence of his [or her] agent, whether his [or her] agent was an employee or an independent contractor.' " ( Id. at p. 727, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , italics omitted.) Although the nondelegable duty doctrine may enable the injured employee of an independent contractor to sue the party who hired the independent contractor (see, e.g., Felmlee v. Falcon Cable TV (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1032 , 1034-1035, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 158 ), Serrano fails to explain how it applies here.

2022As relevant here, the nondelegable duty doctrine provides that an employee of an independent contractor “‘may sue the general contractor for [violations of] specific, nondelegable duties in certain cases.’” (Evard v. Southern California Edison (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 137, 147 (Evard).) Additionally, the “retained control” exception provides that “a hirer owes a duty to a contract worker if the hirer retains control over any part of the work and actually exercises that control so as to affirmatively contribute to the worker’s injury.” (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 271 , citing, Hooker v. De

2005Insofar as a plaintiff seeks to make the hirer vicariously liable, the nondelegable duty rule does not survive Hooker, supra, 27 Cal.4th 198 .

2026The nondelegable duty exception When the hirer has a nondelegable duty, it cannot “evad[e] responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an 5 Here, Alliance failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance. 6 There are other exceptions, such as when the hirer “withhold[s] critical safety information” from the independent contractor (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 271 ), but these other exceptions are not at issue in this case. 11 independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” (SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) For a duty to be nondelegable, the duty must “preexis

2007Nondelegable Duty Doctrine Under California’s nondelegable duty doctrine, “a carrier who undertakes an activity (1) which can be lawfully carried on only under a public franchise or authority and (2) which involves possible danger to the public is liable to a third person for harm caused by the negligence of the carrier’s independent contractor.” (Serna, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1486 .) Plaintiffs contend that Budget was conducting business under a federal franchise as a motor carrier, and, under the nondelegable duty doctrine, Budget is responsible for Diaz’s negligence regardless of Alab

2018(See Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 701 , 728, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 415 [finding it "conceivable that, under certain circumstances, a joint employer could satisfy its affirmative meal and rest obligations by delegating those duties to a coemployer"].) Though Serrano argues in terms of the nondelegable duty doctrine, her contention that Aerotek is liable for Bay Bread's violations is essentially *783 grounded on the idea that Aerotek and Bay Bread were her joint employers.

2018(See Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 701 , 728, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 415 [finding it "conceivable that, under certain circumstances, a joint employer could satisfy its affirmative meal and rest obligations by delegating those duties to a coemployer"].) Though Serrano argues in terms of the nondelegable duty doctrine, her contention that Aerotek is liable for Bay Bread's violations is essentially *783 grounded on the idea that Aerotek and Bay Bread were her joint employers.

2003(Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 114-122 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 457 ].) In the present context, applying the nondelegable duty rule to the theory of premises liability cannot be reconciled with Privette and its progeny.

2003(Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 114-122 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 457 ].) In the present context, applying the nondelegable duty rule to the theory of premises liability cannot be reconciled with Privette and its progeny.

2003As the court explained in Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 727 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , "the nondelegable duty rule is a form of vicarious liability because it is not based on the personal fault of the landowner who hired the independent contractor." (Italics added.) For this reason, the nondelegable duty rule is incompatible with the limitations on hirer liability established in Privette and subsequent cases. ( Lopez v. University Partners (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1129 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 359 .) Delgado and the other cases cited by the Sheelers are not persuasive on t

2003As the court explained in Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 727 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , "the nondelegable duty rule is a form of vicarious liability because it is not based on the personal fault of the landowner who hired the independent contractor." (Italics added.) For this reason, the nondelegable duty rule is incompatible with the limitations on hirer liability established in Privette and subsequent cases. ( Lopez v. University Partners (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1129 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 359 .) Delgado and the other cases cited by the Sheelers are not persuasive on t

2023Under the nondelegable duty doctrine . . . the carrier is treated in such cases as if it owned the truck and employed the driver for purposes of determining the carrier’s liability for the negligence of the subcontractor”]; Gamboa v. Conti Trucking (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 663, 665-666 ; Milsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 434 [acknowledging doctrine and discussing Murphy]; Rest.2d Torts, § 428 [“[a]n 12 The California Supreme Court in Eli v. Murphy, supra, 39 Cal.2d 598 stated: “The effectiveness of safety regulations is necessarily impaired if a carrier conducts its busin

2022As relevant here, the nondelegable duty doctrine provides that an employee of an independent contractor “‘may sue the general contractor for [violations of] specific, nondelegable duties in certain cases.’” (Evard v. Southern California Edison (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 137, 147 (Evard).) Additionally, the “retained control” exception provides that “a hirer owes a duty to a contract worker if the hirer retains control over any part of the work and actually exercises that control so as to affirmatively contribute to the worker’s injury.” (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 271 , citing, Hooker v. De

2022Rather, the duties serve goals such as placing responsibility on the entities “in the best position to ensure product safety,” where those in the production chain can “adjust the costs of liability” in their “continuing business relationship.” (Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 479 ; see Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 727 [“the nondelegable duty rule advances the same purposes as other forms of vicarious liability”].) Vandermark requires the conclusion that an “authorized dealer” acts as the manufacturer’s agent by allowing liability when the dealer “make[s] the fin

2022It is true that Vandermark includes a citation to Dow and also states that Ford “cannot delegate its duty to have its cars delivered to the ultimate purchaser free from dangerous defects.” (Vandermark, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 261 .) But Vandermark is a products liability case, and the nondelegable duty doctrine at issue in Dow is not a products liability doctrine.

2021(Id. at p. 259 [where child injured after falling down elevator shaft due to independent contractor’s negligent maintenance, landlord found liable under nondelegable duty rule]; Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America, Inc., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 36 [applying Brown where injury occurred due to malfunctioning elevator].) The nondelegable duty rule has been applied to other instances of unsafe conditions of real property.