 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hooker v. Department of Transportation1/31/2002
As amended January 31, 2002.
ROSEANNE HOOKER, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT
Los Angeles County Judge David A. Horowitz Super. Ct. No. BC152695 Ct.App. 2/4 B128914
Attorneys for Appellant: Paul & Janofsky, Gary M. Paul, John S. Janofsky; Lewis, Goldberg & Ball, Michael L. Goldberg and Michael D. Hutchinson for Plaintiff and Appellant. Ian Herzog; William L. Veen; James C. Sturdevant; Brian C. Unitt; Dennis M. Elber; David A. Rosen; The Arns Law Firm, Morgan C. Smith and Robert S. Arns for the Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Attorneys for Respondent: Neumeyer & Boyd, Carol Boyd, Katherine A. Tatikian; Seifert, Henderson & Farricker and Edward Wm. Farricker for Defendant and Respondent. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold and Frederick D. Baker for the American Chemistry Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. John P. Carpenter for Associated General Contractors of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Fred J. Hiestand for the Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Radoslovich Law Office, Frank M. Radoslovich and Brad J. Stephens for Production Framing Systems, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): Michael L. Goldberg, Lewis, Goldberg & Ball 1320 Old Chain Bridge Road, Suite 360 McLean, VA 22101 (703) 506-0550. Carol Boyd, Neumeyer & Boyd 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 553-9393. John P. Carpenter 557 West 1700 South Salt Lake City, UT 84115 (801) 886-0840.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Brown, J.
This is the latest in a series of cases in which we have considered whether an employee of an independent contractor may sue the hirer of the contractor under tort theories covered in chapter 15 of the Restatement Second of Torts (hereafter Restatement). In Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette) and Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253 (Toland), we held that an employee of a contractor may not sue the hirer of the contractor under either of the alternative versions of the peculiar risk doctrine set forth in sections 413 and 416. Under section 413, a person who hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but who fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions be taken to avert the peculiar risks of that work, can be liable if the contractor's negligent performance of the work causes injury to others. Under section 416, even if the hirer has provided for special precautions in the contract or otherwise, the hirer can nevertheless be liable if the contractor fails to exercise reasonable care to take such precautions and the contractor's performance of the work causes injury to others. Most recently, in Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235 (Camargo), we held that an employee of a contractor may not sue the hirer of the contractor under the negligent hiring theory set forth in section 411. Under section 411, a hirer is liable for physical harm to third persons caused by the hirer's failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent contractor to perform work which will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or to perform any duty which the hirer owes to third persons.
The question presented in this case
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|