Memorandum Points and AuthoritiesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 16, 2018c (U CQ ^ I ra o Q. C xz o o ^ o O ^^ ij^ > 4-< c C OJ m u3 I njc s -c E- o ° K o - 2 c: ^ o 5 I/O 1/1cu VIt- I o dI < TO 1/0 1^ CU Q. O Di 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. Permitting A Hazard To Remain on a Premises Does Not Constitute the “Affirmative Contribution” Necessary to Impose Liability Under Hooker In Brannan v. Lathrop (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1170, Plaintiff was a bricklayer for Bratton Masonry (“Bratton”), a subcontractor Lathrop hired to perform masonry work. {Id., 1173.) Lathrop hired Henley & Company (“Henley”) to perform plaster work. {Id., 1173.) Henley erected a plaster scaffold. {Id., 1174.) Plaintiff was injured as he was trying to cross over the scaffold in order to gain access so he could lay masonry in an area underneath it. {Id., 1174.) Plaintiff explained that he had to “work around the plaster scaffold” and had been “left with no other option than to climb over the rungs of the scaffold.” {Id., 1174, 1179.) There was “no other way to access the area in which he was working” and the scaffolding “prevented and blocked his access to his work, causing him to fall.” {Id., 1173-74.) Under Privette, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Lathrop. The court explained that merely permitting the existence of a dangerous condition does not constitute affirmative contribution. This was the case even though Lathrop “had the final say on coordination of the work at the site and had authority to stop [the] subcontractor's work for a safety issue.” {Id., 1174.) Put another way by Hooker, “[t]he mere failure to exercise a power to compel the subcontractor to adopt safer procedures does not, without more, violate any duty owed to the plaintiff...” {Hooker, supra, 209.) Devcon did not have a duty to direct the work of Beacon or warn plaintiff not to work down slope of the loaded boom lift. d. A Hirer May Not Be Held Liable for Injuries that Result from a Worker’s Miscalculation About the Appropriate Method to Perform The Work (1) Gravelin v. Satterfield In Gravelin v. Satterfield (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1209, the Court of Appeal, First District, explained that a hirer’s failure to warn the contractor about a dangerous condition will not overcome the protections afforded by Privette. Homeowners hired a contractor to replace a satellite dish on the roof of their residence. (/J., 1212.) Plaintiff was employed by the contractor. {Id.) The homeowners showed him where the existing satellite dish was located. {Id., 1212.) Plaintiff climbed to the top of his own ladder, 4848-2832-8614.2 - 8 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT >^ a; •i-' c