13 California opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Privette v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011In holding the city's tort law duty to be nondelegable, Van Arsdale relied on the peculiar risk doctrine. ( Van Arsdale, supra, 68 Cal.2d at pp. 253-254.) But as already discussed (see pp. 598-599, ante ), our 1993 decision in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689 , rejected application of the peculiar risk doctrine in the context of tort actions by employees of independent contractors, and it overruled Van Arsdale. ( Privette, at pp. 696, 702, fn. 4.) Therefore, Van Arsdale is no help to plaintiffs here, and neither is our statement in Maloney, supra, 69 Cal.2d at page 447, which was based on Van Ar 2009(Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 725-726 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 ] {Srithong), citing Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) The doctrine of nondelegable duties is an exception to this general rule of nonliability. | 2 | 3 |
EVARD v. Southern California Edisongreen2 sentences2015The Nondelegable Duties Doctrine The nondelegable duties doctrine, another exception to the common law rule of hirer nonliability, “prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” ( SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) As relevant here, the Restatement Second of Torts describes two kinds of nondelegable duties: (1) Section 424 (Precautions Required by Statute or Regulation) {section 424): “One who by statute or by administrative regulation is under a duty to provid 2015The Nondelegable Duties Doctrine The nondelegable duties doctrine, another exception to the common law rule of hirer nonliability, “prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” ( SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) As relevant here, the Restatement Second of Torts describes two kinds of nondelegable duties: (1) Section 424 (Precautions Required by Statute or Regulation) {section 424): “One who by statute or by administrative regulation is under a duty to provid | 2 | 2 |
Srithong v. Total Investment Co.green2 sentences2009(Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 725-726 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 ] {Srithong), citing Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) The doctrine of nondelegable duties is an exception to this general rule of nonliability. 2009(Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 725-726 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 ] {Srithong), citing Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) The doctrine of nondelegable duties is an exception to this general rule of nonliability. | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundationgreen2 sentences2009(Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d 256, 259-260 [ 143 P.2d 929 ] (Brown); Srithong, at p. 726.) Brown described the doctrine of nondelegable duties: “ ‘The duty which a possessor *37 of land owes to others to put and maintain it in reasonably safe condition is nondelegable. 2009(Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d 256, 259-260 [ 143 P.2d 929 ] (Brown); Srithong, at p. 726.) Brown described the doctrine of nondelegable duties: “ ‘The duty which a possessor *37 of land owes to others to put and maintain it in reasonably safe condition is nondelegable. | 1 | 2 |
Maloney v. Rathgreen2 sentences2011In holding the city's tort law duty to be nondelegable, Van Arsdale relied on the peculiar risk doctrine. ( Van Arsdale, supra, 68 Cal.2d at pp. 253-254.) But as already discussed (see pp. 598-599, ante ), our 1993 decision in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689 , rejected application of the peculiar risk doctrine in the context of tort actions by employees of independent contractors, and it overruled Van Arsdale. ( Privette, at pp. 696, 702, fn. 4.) Therefore, Van Arsdale is no help to plaintiffs here, and neither is our statement in Maloney, supra, 69 Cal.2d at page 447, which was based on Van Ar 1994(Maloney v. Rath, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 447 ; Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation, supra, 23 Cal.2d at pp. 259-260.) Under this doctrine, a landlord cannot escape liability for failure to maintain property in a safe condition by delegating such duty to an independent contractor. | 1 | 2 |
Eli v. Murphygreen2 sentences2015The Nondelegable Duties Doctrine The nondelegable duties doctrine, another exception to the common law rule of hirer nonliability, “prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” ( SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) As relevant here, the Restatement Second of Torts describes two kinds of nondelegable duties: (1) Section 424 (Precautions Required by Statute or Regulation) {section 424): “One who by statute or by administrative regulation is under a duty to provid 2015The Nondelegable Duties Doctrine The nondelegable duties doctrine, another exception to the common law rule of hirer nonliability, “prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.” ( SeaBright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 600 .) As relevant here, the Restatement Second of Torts describes two kinds of nondelegable duties: (1) Section 424 (Precautions Required by Statute or Regulation) {section 424): “One who by statute or by administrative regulation is under a duty to provid | 1 | 1 |
California Ass'n of Health Facilities v. Department of Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2011Evidence Code section 669, which codifies the common law doctrine of negligence per se (Elsner, at p. 927), does not negate or repeal the doctrine of nondelegable duties (California Assn. of Health Facilities v. Department of Health Services (1997) 16 Cal.4th 284, 298 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 872 , 940 P.2d 323 ]). 2011Evidence Code section 669, which codifies the common law doctrine of negligence per se (Elsner, at p. 927), does not negate or repeal the doctrine of nondelegable duties (California Assn. of Health Facilities v. Department of Health Services (1997) 16 Cal.4th 284, 298 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 872 , 940 P.2d 323 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Millsap v. Federal Express Corp.green2 sentences2009(See Rest.2d Torts, § 409, p. 370; Millsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 430 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 807 ]; Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361, 365 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) There are multiple exceptions to the rule, however, one being the doctrine of nondelegable duties. 2009(See Rest.2d Torts, § 409, p. 370; Millsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 430 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 807 ]; Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361, 365 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) There are multiple exceptions to the rule, however, one being the doctrine of nondelegable duties. | 1 | 1 |
Fonseca v. County of Orangegreen2 sentences2009(See Rest.2d Torts, § 409, p. 370; Millsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 430 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 807 ]; Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361, 365 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) There are multiple exceptions to the rule, however, one being the doctrine of nondelegable duties. 2009(See Rest.2d Torts, § 409, p. 370; Millsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 430 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 807 ]; Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361, 365 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) There are multiple exceptions to the rule, however, one being the doctrine of nondelegable duties. | 1 | 1 |
Kuntz v. Kern County Employees' Retirement Ass'ngreen2 sentences1997(See Kuntz v. Kern County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 414, 422 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 501 ].) We turn then to the judicial construction of Evidence Code section 669 preceding the enactment of the reasonable licensee defense to ascertain the compatibility of the latter with the doctrine of nondelegable duties. 1997(See Kuntz v. Kern County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 414, 422 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 501 ].) We turn then to the judicial construction of Evidence Code section 669 preceding the enactment of the reasonable licensee defense to ascertain the compatibility of the latter with the doctrine of nondelegable duties. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
SeaBright Insurance v. US Airways, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023(Seabright, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 603 .) Since any tort law duty the airline owed the contractor’s employees only existed because of the maintenance and repair work the contractor was performing for the airline, it did not fall within the nondelegable duties doctrine. 2018Any tort law duty US Airways owed to Aubry's employees only existed because of the work (maintenance and repair of the conveyor) that Aubry was performing for the airline, and therefore it did not fall within the nondelegable duties doctrine." ( SeaBright , supra , 52 Cal.4th at pp. 602-603, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 601 , 258 P.3d 737 .) The court further noted that the policy favoring delegation in the case before it was bolstered by the same factors it considered persuasive in Privette . | 6 | 2015–2023 |
Vargas v. FMI, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021“The nondelegable duties doctrine . . . ‘prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.’” (Vargas, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 649 .) “The doctrine is an exception to the common law rule that ‘a person who hired an independent contractor generally was not liable to third parties for injuries caused by the contractor’s negligence in performing the work.’ [Citation.] . . . ‘[T]he party charged with a nondelegable duty is “held liable for the negligence of his [or her] ag 2018Breach of Nondelegable Duties The nondelegable duties doctrine " 'prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.' [Citation.]" *1088 ( Vargas v. FMI, Inc . (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 638 , 649, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 803 .) In the present case, plaintiffs contend that as a building owner, TCI had a statutory duty pursuant to Cal-OSHA and other regulations to install roof anchors to which window washers could attach their gear. | 3 | 2018–2021 |
Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021“The nondelegable duties doctrine . . . ‘prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work.’” (Vargas, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 649 .) “The doctrine is an exception to the common law rule that ‘a person who hired an independent contractor generally was not liable to third parties for injuries caused by the contractor’s negligence in performing the work.’ [Citation.] . . . ‘[T]he party charged with a nondelegable duty is “held liable for the negligence of his [or her] ag | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Padilla v. Pomona College
green
2 sentences2016The regulation only applied when specific work was being performed. ( Padilla , supra , 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 671 , 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 869 .) *706 The regulations at issue here are like those in SeaBright and Padilla . 2016The regulation only applied when specific work was being performed. ( Padilla , supra , 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 671 , 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 869 .) *706 The regulations at issue here are like those in SeaBright and Padilla . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015(Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 32, 36 .) This exception is described in Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d 256 , as follows: “‘The duty which a possessor of land owes to others to put and maintain it in reasonably safe condition is nondelegable. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Davert v. Larson
green
1 sentence2015For example, in Davert v. Larson (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 407 (Davert), individual owners of real property consisting of common areas in a recreational community were sued after a horse escaped from the land they owned and collided with a car traveling on an adjacent road. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence2015(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548 .) In Soule, the Court held that “[a] party is entitled upon request to correct, 20. nonargumentative jury instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at p. 572.) When the jury in a civil case receives an improper instruction, prejudice generally will be found only “‘“where it seems probable that the jury’s verdict may have been based on the erroneous instruction….”’” (Id. at p. 574.) The Storzes are correct that the doctrine of nondelegable duties has been applied as an exception | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.