Privette Doctrine Strengthened – Duties Owed By Hirer Of Independent Contractor Further Restricted

by: Chad S. Tapp and Matthew R. Day

California law has long held that when employees of independent contractors are injured at the workplace, the employee cannot sue the party that hired the independent contractor.  (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689.)  A recent California Supreme Court decision further extends the protections afforded to the hirer of independent contractors even when the hirer fails to comply with safety regulations set forth by Cal-OSHA.

In SeaBright Insurance Co. v U.S. Airways, Inc., U.S. Airways hired an independent contractor to repair and maintain the baggage conveyor system.  An employee of U.S. Airways’ independent contractor was injured during his inspection of the baggage conveyor system.  The employee received workers’ compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained.  The workers’ compensation insurance company and the injured employee then sued U.S. Airways, arguing that U.S. Airways owed a duty, under tort law, because the conveyor system lacked safety guards required by regulation.  The Supreme Court rejected the argument 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 non-delegable.”

The Supreme Court held that when U.S. Airways hired an independent contractor to maintain the conveyor, U.S. Airways presumptively delegated, to the independent contractor, any tort law duty of care which U.S. Airways may have had under Cal-OSHA to ensure workplace safety for the independent contractor’s employees.  More plainly stated, the Supreme Court held that an employer’s duties under Cal-OSHA and its regulations are delegable and are presumptively delegated to independent contractors.

While workplace safety should always be at the forefront for all parties, this recent Supreme Court decision strengthens the defenses offered to those who hire independent contractors when the independent contractor’s employee is injured at the workplace.  The decision also places a greater onus on independent contractors to ensure that the workplace is safe for its employees.  The implication for plaintiffs is that workers’ compensation will be the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained at the workplace, even when safety regulations have not been met by the hirer of the independent contractor.

For more information about how this doctrine may affect you, please contact our office.