8 Cited authorities

  1. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400

    25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,175 times
    Affirming summary judgment when plaintiffs evidence only raised a speculative possibility that defendant's breaches caused the plaintiff's injuries
  2. Privette v. Superior Court

    5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 313 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.
  3. Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy

    25 Cal.4th 1235 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that "an employee of an independent contractor [is barred] from bringing a negligent hiring action against the hirer of the contractor"
  4. Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.

    18 Cal.4th 253 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 109 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
  5. Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc.

    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"
  6. Cal. Bank & Trust v. Lawlor

    222 Cal.App.4th 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 60 times
    Rejecting defendants sham guaranty defense because they failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue
  7. Stonegate Home. Assn. v. Staben

    144 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 38 times
    Reversing nonsuit where trial court erroneously excluded expert testimony
  8. 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"