The California Supreme Court overturned a decision from the Court of Appeals to add a third exception to the "Privette Doctrine," according to the ruling.
The court said it will "decline to adopt a rule that subjects landowners to greater liability than other hirers for injuries stemming from known hazards."
The Privette Doctrine in California states that property owners do not have a duty to protect independent contractors or a contractor’s employees from hazards that could be dangerous.
"In our view, it’s a significant decision that (1) reaches the right result and (2) confirms that California law protects homeowners and hirers from liability where they have hired an independent contractor to perform work, even where there is a known safety hazard that cannot be minimized by reasonable safety precautions," attorney Ellie Ruth of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP in Los Angeles, said in a statement to the Southern California Record.
The ruling from the California Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Mathis states that a landowner presumptively delegates to an independent contractor all responsibility for workplace safety, including the responsibility to ensure that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite.
"In so ruling, the Supreme Court made some important holdings—all of which re-affirm the 'no duty' liability limitations established in the Privette doctrine," Ruth said. "The Court’s opinion also recognizes the importance of allowing defendants (i.e. landowners/hirers) to obtain summary judgment—which is significant because this procedure substantially contains landowners’/hirers’ costs and liability exposures in defending these negligence cases."