8 Cited authorities

Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400
25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,214 times
Affirming summary judgment when plaintiffs evidence only raised a speculative possibility that defendant's breaches caused the plaintiff's injuries
Privette v. Superior Court
5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993) Cited 324 times 19 Legal Analyses
In Privette, the California Supreme Court provided a thorough analysis of the intersection of workers' compensation and the peculiar risk doctrine, an exception to the general rule of nonliability for a landowner who hires an independent contractor to perform inherently dangerous work as recognized in Sections 413, 416, and 427 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Privette, 854 P.2d at 691, 693; see also Thompson, 979 P.2d at 329.
Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy
25 Cal.4th 1235 (Cal. 2001) Cited 114 times
Holding that "an employee of an independent contractor [is barred] from bringing a negligent hiring action against the hirer of the contractor"
Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.
18 Cal.4th 253 (Cal. 1998) Cited 110 times
Holding that Privette bars all actions against a an independent contractor's employee against the hirer under the peculiar risk doctrine, provided that employee's injuries are subject to workers' compensation coverage
Cal. Bank & Trust v. Lawlor
222 Cal.App.4th 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 67 times
Rejecting defendants sham guaranty defense because they failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue
Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc.
130 Cal.App.4th 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 84 times
Holding that an indispensable party is virtually identical to a party who may intervene by right, and that a party may intervene by right to protect an interest "unless that [party's] interest is adequately represented by existing parties"
Stonegate Home. Assn. v. Staben
144 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 41 times
Reversing nonsuit where trial court erroneously excluded expert testimony
Kinney v. CSB Construction, Inc.
86 Cal.App.4th 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 37 times
Holding that "a general contractor owes no duty of care to an employee of a subcontractor to prevent or correct unsafe procedures or practices to which the contractor did not contribute by direction, induced reliance, or other affirmative conduct"

Motion Summary Judgment

8 Cited authorities

Affirming summary judgment when plaintiffs evidence only raised a speculative possibility that defendant's breaches caused the plaintiff's injuries

Holding that "an employee of an independent contractor [is barred] from bringing a negligent hiring action against the hirer of the contractor"

Holding that Privette bars all actions against a an independent contractor's employee against the hirer under the peculiar risk doctrine, provided that employee's injuries are subject to workers' compensation coverage

Rejecting defendants sham guaranty defense because they failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue

Holding that an indispensable party is virtually identical to a party who may intervene by right, and that a party may intervene by right to protect an interest "unless that [party's] interest is adequately represented by existing parties"

Reversing nonsuit where trial court erroneously excluded expert testimony

Holding that "a general contractor owes no duty of care to an employee of a subcontractor to prevent or correct unsafe procedures or practices to which the contractor did not contribute by direction, induced reliance, or other affirmative conduct"