Reported / Citable
Background
Leonardo Cordero worked for Camblin Steel Service, an ironworking subcontractor on a pedestrian bridge project in Menlo Park. Ghilotti Construction Company was the turnkey contractor for the project, having contracted with general contractor Level 10 to design, procure, and install the bridge. Ghilotti subcontracted with about 20 subcontractors, including Camblin to install rebar reinforcement.
Camblin’s subcontract with Ghilotti made Camblin responsible for providing a safe workplace for its employees and for complying with Cal-OSHA regulations. Ghilotti personnel performed site preparation each morning, including dewatering and laying planks for safe access. On the morning Camblin began work at one bridge support column area, Ghilotti’s crew dewatered the area, cleaned mud, and laid planks before turning the area over to Camblin. Cordero arrived with his Camblin crew, walked through muddy areas, and slipped and was injured.
Cordero sued Ghilotti for damages from his industrial injuries. The trial court granted Ghilotti summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which presumes that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates workplace safety responsibility to the contractor and is not liable for injuries to the contractor’s workers. Cordero appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal, Division One, affirmed. The court held that the Privette doctrine fully applied. Under the California Supreme Court’s decisions in Privette and Gonzalez v. Mathis, a hirer of an independent contractor is presumed to delegate all responsibility for workplace safety to the contractor. The presumption applies to general contractors, turnkey contractors, and other entities in the project hierarchy.
Cordero’s first argument, that a Cal-OSHA regulation imposed a nondelegable duty on Ghilotti, failed. While certain Cal-OSHA regulations may impose nondelegable duties in particular circumstances, the regulation Cordero invoked addressed general site conditions and could be delegated to the subcontractor responsible for that work. The subcontract expressly transferred safety responsibility for Camblin’s work area to Camblin, including responsibility for inspecting the site and reporting unsafe conditions.
Cordero’s second argument, that Ghilotti retained control under the Hooker exception, also failed. The Hooker exception requires evidence that the hirer affirmatively contributed to the injury, not merely that the hirer retained general supervisory authority. Ghilotti’s morning site preparation, including dewatering and laying planks, did not constitute affirmative contribution; rather, it was preparatory work that put the area in safer condition before turning control over to Camblin. There was no evidence that Ghilotti directed how the work was to be performed or that its preparation work itself caused the unsafe condition.
Key Takeaways
- The Privette doctrine creates a strong presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates workplace safety responsibility to the contractor and is not liable for injuries to the contractor’s workers.
- The presumption applies to turnkey contractors and other intermediate hirers, not just to general contractors.
- Most Cal-OSHA regulations can be delegated through subcontract terms. To establish a nondelegable Cal-OSHA duty, a plaintiff must identify a specific regulation that cannot, by its terms or nature, be delegated.
- The Hooker retained control exception requires evidence that the hirer affirmatively contributed to the injury, not just that the hirer retained general site supervision or performed preparatory work.
- Pre-work site preparation by the hirer, such as dewatering or installing safety planking, is not affirmative contribution under Hooker if the area is then turned over to the subcontractor’s control.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strong protection that California construction hirers and contractors enjoy under the Privette doctrine. Plaintiffs’ lawyers representing injured construction workers face a steep climb in suing the hirer, even where the hirer remains active on site, performs preparatory work, and has overall project supervision authority.
For construction industry defendants, the opinion provides useful guidance on how to structure subcontracts and document site preparation activities to maximize Privette protection. Express delegation of safety responsibility, contractual indemnification, and clear handoff procedures are all helpful. For plaintiffs’ counsel, the decision underscores that workers’ compensation generally remains the exclusive remedy against the worker’s own employer, and that suits against upstream hirers must rest on specific exceptions that the case demonstrates are narrow and difficult to satisfy.