A Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted a motion for summary judgment that dismisses a lawsuit against a general contracting company.
In Johnson v the Hill Contractors, a carpenter named Michael Johnson sued Hill Contractors after he was injured in 2017 when he fell while working on a 25-foot-tall concrete column that formed part of a parking structure, but Judge Mark E. Windham decided that Hill Contractors is not liable for Johnson’s injuries.
“The Court finds that Defendant has met its burden on summary judgment to show that no triable issues of fact exist as to whether the Privette doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims because it delegated the duty to safeguard its employees at the worksite to Guy Yocum [Construction],” Windham wrote in his Oct. 27 minute order.
Under the Privette Doctrine, a business entity is not liable for the injuries of a contract worker who was hired by a subcontractor or independent contractor.
“Our client took responsibility for this project by entering into a contract that laid out the terms and conditions that the subcontractor was responsible for its own scope of work, its means and methods, and the safety of its employees, and the court did the right thing by following the case law,” said Rick Somes, managing partner at Tyson & Mendes in Orange County.
A statutory duty was owed by Hill Construction, according to the complaint. However, attorneys for Hill Construction argued that the agreement between the subcontractor Guy Yocum Construction and Hill Construction established that the subcontractor was the controlling employer and not Hill Construction.
“The plaintiff alleged that our client’s negligence caused the column to be released before it was properly braced to the ground, causing it to lean," said Molly Gilardi, who co-defended the case. "As a result, the plaintiff fell onto the second floor of the parking structure and the column – weighing about 2,000 lbs. – fell onto him, resulting in multiple injuries.”
The judge's minute order said that the agreement stated that Guy Yocum Construction agreed to “provide safe and sufficient facilities at all times.”
The plaintiff and his legal counsel were seeking some $10 million.
“They just thought that they had persuasive arguments that were where they could find an exception to the rule,” Somes told the Southern California Record. “There are various exceptions to the doctrine like if the agreement deviates outside the scope where the general contractor is controlling mean and methods.”