 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Padilla v. Arroyo Maintenance Corporation5/30/2002
Guadalupe Padilla, an employee of Pacific Environmental Landscape, Inc. (PEL), was gravely injured in the course of his employment when he was hit by falling debris during the dismantling of a crudely built "treehouse." He and his wife, Esperanza, filed this suit for personal injuries and loss of consortium against Arroyo Maintenance Corporation and Merit Property Management, Inc., the entities that hired PEL for the job. Among other things, the Padillas theorized that Arroyo and Merit were responsible as employers of the PEL workers, because PEL, a landscape contractor, was not properly licensed to demolish structures. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to Guadalupe's third cause of action for negligence on a vicarious liability theory, and subsequently entered a summary judgment disposing of Guadalupe's remaining negligence causes of action and Esperanza's cause of action for loss of consortium.
The Padillas claim the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to Guadalupe's third cause of action without leave to amend. And while they do not seek to resurrect the causes of action subsequently disposed of by the summary judgment, they contest the court's resolution of one specific issue, i.e., that PEL did not need a class C-21 demolition license to remove the treehouse, because that issue is critical to the viability of the third cause of action they seek to reinstate. The Padillas also assert that if this court reverses the order sustaining the demurrer, it must also reinstate Esperanza's cause of action for loss of consortium.
We agree with the trial court's resolution of the licensing issue. It is undisputed that the treehouse removed by PEL was of the simplest sort-a platform of boards nailed to the tree, and accessible by other boards nailed to the tree trunk in a ladder fashion. Nothing about the treehouse's construction was complex or necessitated particular demolition expertise, and PEL's removal of it was entirely consistent with a landscaper's usual task of pruning trees and removing dead or dangerous branches. Thus, to the extent such work required any license at all, we conclude it would most appropriately fall within the scope of a landscaper's license. Consequently, PEL's failure to have a demolition license did not transform either Arroyo or Merit into statutory employers of PEL's workers and there was no basis for holding either entity liable as such. The judgment is affirmed.
PEL was under contract to maintain the landscaped common areas, including "all trees under twenty five feet" in a housing tract owned by Arroyo and managed by Merit. Its contract also provided that it would perform work in the natural (i.e., non-landscaped) areas of Arroyo's property on a "time and materials basis."
Merit requested that PEL remove what appeared to be a crude children's treehouse discovered in one of the trees in a natural area, and PEL agreed. According to the Padillas' description, the treehouse "consisted of two levels, one at the bottom of the tree and one level approximately twenty feet up in the tree. There were also wooden steps nailed to the tree that led up the tree. The pallet in the upper part of the tree was nailed to the tree itself. [ ] The treehouse also originally consisted of some walls. The portion of the treehouse in the upper level of the tree consisted both of vertical and horizontal boards, and they were all nailed to the tree." (Internal references omitted.)
Guadalupe Padilla was one of the PEL employees involved in removal of the treehouse. In the course of that endeavor while working at ground level, he was hit by falling debris. He sustained severe and apparently permanent head injuries, and r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|