§Why CasetextPricing

Brandon Hamilton vs. Foundation Building Materials, LLC.

Reply to Motion

10 Cited authorities

  1. Hooker v. Department of Transportation

    27 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 171 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding property owner that "retained control over safety conditions at the worksite," and knowingly "permitted" unsafe practice to continue at worksite, not liable for death of independent contractor's employee, where owner "did not direct" employee to engage in unsafe practice

  2. Seabright Ins. Co. v. U.S. Airways, Inc.

    52 Cal.4th 590 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 90 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the tort law duty, if any, that a hirer owes under Cal-OSHA and its regulations to the employees of an independent contractor" is delegable

  3. Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital

    8 Cal.4th 100 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 118 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the "fundamental principle that 'there can be no indemnity without liability' "

  4. Munoz v. Davis

    141 Cal.App.3d 420 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 80 times
    In Munoz, the plaintiff sued his attorney for malpractice, and the attorney sought indemnification from a third-party negligent driver for causing the accident that led to his representation of the plaintiff.

  5. Brannan v. Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc.

    206 Cal.App.4th 1170 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that general contractor's act of scheduling, permitting the scaffold in question to remain on the jobsite, and permitting masonry work to continue despite the rain did not constitute affirmative contribution

  6. Sheeler v. Greystone Homes, Inc.

    113 Cal.App.4th 908 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    In Sheeler, the plaintiffs argued that their negligence claims fell "outside the limitations on hirer liability in Privette and its progeny" because, unlike the situations in Privette and the California Supreme Court's cases following Privette, "Sheeler's injuries [were] not traceable to negligence by his own employer."

  7. Williams v. State Compensation Ins. Fund

    50 Cal.App.3d 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 37 times
    In Williams, the plaintiff did not urge that the injury to his genital organs constituted a disfigurement within the meaning of Labor Code section 4660, apparently because such a claim would have defeated his contention that his injury was not covered by workers' compensation and supported an independent action.

  8. Williams v. Schwartz

    61 Cal.App.3d 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 16 times
    In Williams v. Schwartz (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 628, 631 et seq. [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 200], the court, relying on consortium cases, held that action for infliction of emotional distress for negligence of the spouse's employer in injuring the spouse was precluded by the broad language of the exclusive remedy provisions limiting the employer's liability.

  9. Brittell v. Young

    90 Cal.App.3d 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 12 times

    Docket No. 20078. March 13, 1979. Appeal from Superior Court of Riverside County, No. 22010, Richard M. Marsh, Judge. COUNSEL Dunbar Taylor and Douglas R. Taylor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Hagenbaugh Murphy and Everett Hinchcliffe for Intervener and Appellant. Pickell Brown and Ned A. Kimball for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION TAMURA, Acting P.J. This appeal involves the scope of immunity of an employee under Labor Code section 3601, which makes the right to recover workers' compensation

  10. Gillespie v. Northridge Hosp. Foundation

    20 Cal.App.3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 14 times
    Referring to common law derivative rights