Opinion ID: 1242934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-Privette Decisions by the Courts of Appeal

Text: We filed our decision in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721, on July 19,1993. In April 1994, the Court of Appeal decided Owens v. Giannetta-Heinrich Construction Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1662, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 11. In that case, a subcontractor's employee was injured while working as a dry wall installer on a construction project. The employee sued the project's general contractor under the doctrine of peculiar risk. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the subcontractor's employee. The Court of Appeal reversed, agreeing with the general contractor that Privette barred recovery by the subcontractor's employee. In its decision, the Court of Appeal in Owens made these general observations about the doctrine of peculiar risk: [P]eculiar risk is not exclusively a form of vicarious liability. It may arise as a form of direct liability if the person who hires an independent contractor `(a) fails to provide in the contract that the contractor shall take such precautions, or [¶] (b) fails to exercise reasonable care to provide in some other manner for the taking of such precautions.' (Rest.2d Torts, § 413; see Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 508-509 [156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619]; Woolen v. Aerojet General Corp. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 407, 410 [20 Cal.Rptr. 12, 369 P.2d 708]; Addison v. Susanville Lumber, Inc. (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 394, 398-399 [120 Cal.Rptr. 737]; Stilson v. Moulton-Niguel Water Dist. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 928, 938 [98 Cal.Rptr. 914].) Peculiar risk liability is vicarious when injury is caused `by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take [special] precautions, even though the employer has provided for such precautions in the contract or otherwise.' (Rest.2d Torts, § 416; see Van Arsdale v. Hollinger (1968) 68 Cal.2d 245, 254 [66 Cal.Rptr. 20, 437 P.2d 508].) ( Owens v. Giannetta-Heinrich Construction Co., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1667-1668, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 11, fn. omitted.) The Court of Appeal in Owens added: It is plain from the discussion in Privette that the Supreme Court intended its holding to apply only in those situations where third party liability is vicarious rather than direct. ( Owens v. Giannetta-Heinrich Construction Co., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 1668, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 11.) The Court of Appeal gave no explanation for that conclusion. It may have provided a clue to its reasoning, however, in quoting Privette's footnote 2 in its entirety but italicizing the word normally in the last sentence, as follows: '[P]eculiar risk liability is normally premised on the broader rule of vicarious liability for the contractor's negligence.' ( Owens, supra, at p. 1667, fn. 4, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 11; see also Yanez v. United States (9th Cir.1995) 63 F.3d 870, 873 [describing Owens as stating a narrow exception to Privette for cases brought on the direct ability theory of Restatement Second of Torts section 413].) In this case, the Court of Appeal concluded that Owens v. Giannetta-Heinrich Construction Co., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th 1662, 29 Cal. Rptr.2d 11, was wrong in interpreting our decision in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721, as applying only to the theory of peculiar risk described in section 416 of the Restatement Second of Torts: Both the express language of Privette and a complete reconciliation of the peculiar risk doctrine with the workers' compensation system preclude a landowner's ability for injuries to the employee of a contractor hired by the landowner resulting from work involving a peculiar risk, whether the ability is characterized as direct or vicarious. The Court of Appeal in this case reasoned that Privette made no distinction between section 413 liability and section 416 liability, noting that Privette expressly overruled Woolen v. Aerojet General Corp., supra, 57 Cal.2d 407, 20 Cal.Rptr. 12, 369 P.2d 708, a case that involved only section 413 liability. Because of these conflicting views by the Courts of Appeal, we granted review to clarify the scope of our holding in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721. [2]