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.
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
130 Cal.App.4th 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 79 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"
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"