Opinion ID: 1242934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Our Decision in Privette v. Superior Court

Text: As noted at the outset, in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721, we held that the doctrine of peculiar risk, which serves to ensure a source of tort recovery for innocent bystanders or neighboring landowners injured during the course of inherently dangerous work performed by an independent contractor, should not apply to the contractor's own employees. Privette expressly overruled Woolen v. Aerojet General Corp. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 407, 410-411, 20 Cal.Rptr. 12, 369 P.2d 708, to the extent it held that an employee of an independent contractor could recover under the peculiar risk doctrine against the person who hired the contractor. ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 702, fn. 4, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) Privette's holding is consistent with the law in most of the jurisdictions that have considered the issue. ( Id. at pp. 698-699, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 72,854 P.2d 721, citing cases.) Privette pointed out that the policy reasons that support imposition of peculiar risk liability on the hiring person for injuries to neighboring property owners or innocent bystanders are absent when the person injured by the independent contractor's negligence is an employee of the contractor. ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 701, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) The neighboring landowner or innocent bystander may have no other source of compensation for injuries resulting from the contractor's negligence in doing the inherently dangerous work. In contrast, an employee of the negligent contractor can, for workplace injury caused by the contractor's negligence, recover under the workers' compensation system regardless of the solvency of the contractor. (See Lab. Code, § 3716 [providing workers' compensation benefits to workers employed by uninsured employers].) As we explained in Privette, when an independent contractor's employee is injured on the jobsite, workers' compensation achieves the same objectives as tort damages awarded under the peculiar risk doctrine: a dependable source of compensation for workplace injury; spreading the risk of harm of dangerous Work to those who contract for and thus benefit from the work, by including the cost of workers' compensation insurance in the price paid for the contracted work; and promoting safety in the workplace. (5 Cal.4th at p. 701, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) Privette also noted that when the injured person is an employee of the independent contractor, a policy justification for imposing peculiar risk UabUity on the hiring person  namely the hiring person's right to equitable indemnity from the independent contractor  is also absent. ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 701, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) We explained: When a property owner or general contractor who hires an independent contractor for work presenting a peculiar risk of harm to others is held liable under the doctrine of peculiar risk for injuries to an innocent bystander or an owner of neighboring land, the property owner or general contractor can, for the damages paid the injured party, obtain equitable indemnity from the independent contractor responsible for the injuries. This ensures that the ultimate responsibility for the harm caused by the peculiar risk of the work done is borne by the individual or entity at fault for the injury. But when the person injured is an employee of the independent contractor, the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation scheme shield the negligent contractor from an action seeking equitable indemnity. ( [Lab.Code,] § 3864.) ( Ibid. ) We also observed in Privette that although the doctrine of peculiar risk is sometimes described as a nondelegable duty rule, it is in effect a form of vicarious liability. ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 695, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) In a footnote, which briefly mentioned sections 413 and 416 of the Restatement Second of Torts, we said: The conclusion that peculiar risk is a form of vicarious liability is unaffected by: the characterization of the doctrine as `direct' liability in situations when the person hiring an independent contractor `fails to provide in the contract that the contractor shall take [special] precautions.' (Rest.2d Torts, § 413; see Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co., supra, 2A Cal.3d at p. 509 [156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619]; Griesel v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 578, 585-586 [153 Cal.Rptr. 213, 591 P.2d 503].) Irrespective of whether a contract of hire provides that special precautions be taken, a person who employs an independent contractor to perform dangerous work is subject to ability under the doctrine of peculiar risk. (Rest.2d Torts, § 416.) Thus, peculiar risk liability is normally premised on the broader rule of vicarious liability for the contractor's negligence. (See [Note, Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors Engaged in Inherently Dangerous Work: A Workable Workers' Compensation Proposal ] [(1980)] 48 Fordham L.Rev. 1165, 1171; Bower v. Peate [(1876)] 1 Q.B.D. [321,] 326 [the contractor's default is attributable to the person who authorized the work].) ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 695, fn. 2, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) These remarks have, as discussed below, sparked some debate in the Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of our holding in Privette: whether it applies only to section 416 or also to section 413 of the Restatement Second of Torts.