Opinion ID: 1242934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Doctrine of Peculiar Risk

Text: Under the doctrine of peculiar risk, one injured by inherently dangerous work performed by a hired contractor can seek tort damages from the person who hired the contractor. ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 693, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) The doctrine provides an exception to the common law rule that an individual who hires an independent contractor generally is not liable for injuries to others caused by the contractor's negligence in performing the hired work. ( Ibid. ) The courts created this exception in the late 19th century to ensure that innocent third parties injured by inherently dangerous work performed `by an independent contractor for the benefit of the hiring person could sue not only the contractor, but also the hiring person, so that in the event of the contractor's insolvency, the injured person would still have a source of recovery. ( Id, at pp. 693-694, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.) In determining the appealability of the doctrine of peculiar risk, a critical inquiry is whether the work for which the contractor was hired involves a risk that is `peculiar to the work to be done,' arising either from the nature or the location of the work and `against which a reasonable person would recognize the necessity of taking special precautions. `( Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 509, 156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619, quoting Griesel v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 578, 586,153 Cal.Rptr. 213, 591 P.2d 503; Rest.2d Torts, § 413, com. b; id., § 416, com. b.) ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 695, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721, italics added.) A peculiar risk need not be one that would inevitably arise in the course of the work. `It is sufficient that it is a risk which the employer should recognize as likely to arise in the course of the ordinary and usual method of the work, or the particular method which the employer knows that the contractor will adopt.' ( Griesel v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 578, 586, 153 Cal.Rptr. 213, 591 P.2d 503, quoting Rest.2d Torts, § 416, com. e, p. 397; see also Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 774, 785-786, 162 Cal.Rptr. 64 [Where the employer should recognize that a risk is likely to arise as a result of a method of work which the employer knows that the contractor will adopt, this is clearly a peculiar risk within the rule. [Citation.] A peculiar risk may arise out of a contemplated and unsafe method of work adopted by the independent contractor.].) Even when the work presents a special or peculiar risk of harm, the person who hired the contractor will not be liable for injury to others if the injury results from the contractor's collateral or casual negligence. ( Acgves v. Regal Pale Brewing, Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 510, 156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619; Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 71, pp. 515-516; Rest.2d Torts, § 426.) Negligence is collateral when it involves an operative detail of the work, as distinguished from the general plan or method to be followed. ( Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co., supra , at p. 510, 156 Cal. Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619.) But, as we have recognized, it is often difficult to distinguish those risks that are inherent in the work from those that are collateral, and the line to be drawn between the two types of risks is `shadowy.' ( Van Arsdale v. Hollinger [(1968)] 68 Cal.2d 245, 252 [66 Cal.Rptr. 20, 437 P.2d 508], quoting Harper, Law of Torts (1933) § 292.) ( Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 696, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721.)