Opinion ID: 2585247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rationale of Privette, Toland, and Camargo

Text: In Toland, we summarized the peculiar risk doctrine and explained why we had concluded in Privette that under the doctrine a hirer's liability does not extend to the hired contractor's employees. Under the doctrine of peculiar risk, a person who hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work can be held liable for tort damages when the contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work. The doctrine serves to ensure that innocent bystanders or neighboring landowners injured by the hired contractor's negligence will have a source of compensation even if the contractor turns out to be insolvent. As we explained in Privette [, supra, 5 Cal.4th at page] 694 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721], courts created the peculiar risk doctrine in the belief that `as between two parties innocent of any personal wrongdoingthe person who contracted for the work and the hapless victim of the contractor's negligencethe risk of loss occasioned by the contracted work was more fairly allocated to the person for whose benefit the job was undertaken.' [¶] In Privette ..., we unanimously held that under the peculiar risk doctrine the hiring person's liability does not extend to the hired contractor's employees. Because the Workers' Compensation Act (Lab.Code, § 3200 et seq.) shields an independent contractor from tort liability to its employees, applying the peculiar risk doctrine to the independent contractor's employees would illogically and unfairly subject the hiring person, who did nothing to create the risk that caused the injury, to greater liability than that faced by the independent contractor whose negligence caused the employee's injury. (5 Cal.4th at pp. 698-700 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721].) As we concluded: `[T]he property owner should not have to pay for injuries caused by the contractor's negligent performance of the work when workers' compensation statutes already cover those injuries.' ( Id. at p. 699 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721].) ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 256, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504.) As we have indicated, the doctrine of peculiar risk, insofar as it was relevant in Privette and Toland, is described in sections 413 and 416. Under section 413, a person who hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but who fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions be taken to avert the peculiar risks of that work, can be liable if the contractor's negligent performance of the work causes injury to others. Because section 413 rests the liability of the hiring person on his or her omission to provide for special precautions in the contract or in some other manner, it is sometimes described as a rule of `direct liability.' ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 259, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504.) Under section 416, even if the hiring person has provided for special precautions in the contract or otherwise, the hiring person can nevertheless be liable if the contractor fails to exercise reasonable care to take such precautions and the contractor's performance of the work causes injury to others. Because the hiring person's liability under section 416 .. . flows from the independent contractor's negligent failure to take special precautions in performing the inherently dangerous work, as required by `the contract or otherwise,' the hiring person's liability is often referred to as `vicarious liability.' [Citations.] ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 260, 74 Cal.Rptr .2d 878, 955 P.2d 504, fn. omitted.) In Toland, a subcontractor's employee sued the general contractor for on-the-job injuries, asserting that Privette did not bar recovery for direct liability under section 413, but only for vicarious liability under section 416. We rejected the argument, noting that the distinction between the two sorts of liability was not that neat under peculiar risk theory. [P]eculiar risk liability is not a traditional theory of direct liability for the risks created by one's own conduct: Liability under both sections is in essence `vicarious' or `derivative' in the sense that it derives from the `act or omission' of the hired contractor, because it is the hired contractor who has caused the injury by failing to use reasonable care in performing the work. ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 265, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504.) Accordingly, we held that, contrary to plaintiff Toland's assertion, our decision in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721, bars employees of a hired contractor who are injured by the contractor's negligence from seeking recovery against the hiring person, irrespective of whether recovery is sought under the theory of peculiar risk set forth in section 416 or section 413 of the Restatement Second of Torts. In either situation, it would be unfair to impose liability on the hiring person when the liability of the contractor, the one primarily responsible for the worker's on-the-job injuries, is limited to providing workers' compensation coverage. ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 267, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504.) In Camargo, we held that an employee of a contractor is barred from suing the hirer of the contractor under the negligent hiring theory set forth in section 411. Under section 411, a hirer is liable for physical harm to third persons caused by the hirer's failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent contractor to perform work that will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or to perform any duty the hirer owes to third persons. We rejected the argument that Privette and Toland were distinguishable on the ground that in a negligent hiring case the hirer is, in a sense, being taxed with his own negligence, making his liability direct. [T]he same could be said with regard to an action brought under the peculiar risk theory set forth in section 413. More importantly, under both sections 411 and 413, the liability of the hirer is `in essence vicarious or derivative in the sense that it derives from the act or omission of the hired contractor, because it is the hired contractor who caused the injury by failing to use reasonable care in performing the work.' ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 265, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504.) Therefore, in a negligent hiring case under the theory set forth in section 411, just as in peculiar risk cases under the theories set forth in sections 413 and 416, `it would be unfair to impose liability on the hiring person when the liability of the contractor, the one primarily responsible for the worker's on-the-job injuries, is limited to providing workers' compensation coverage.' ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 267, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504.) ( Camargo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1244, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 25 P.3d 1096.)