Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

State subcontractor doctrine bars parents’ suit for worker’s death

Reprints
California

A California appellate court on Tuesday ruled that a legal doctrine barred an effort by the parents of a construction worker to pursue a wrongful death claim against a general contractor that had hired their son’s employer to clean out a sump pump.

Tyler Development Co. Inc., a general contractor working in the home construction industry, hired D&D Construction Specialties Inc. to clean the pump. The contract between Tyler and D&D required D&D to comply with all applicable safety regulations in conducting its work and to keep the work site “clean and free of trash, debris, or material waste caused by its employees or its work,” according to Ayala v. Tyler Development Co. Inc., filed in the Court of Appeal for the 2nd District of California in Los Angeles.

Tyler, which was among several parties sued, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the “Privette doctrine” relieved it of any liability for injuries sustained by workers hired by a subcontractor. That doctrine holds that a hirer of an independent contractor is typically not liable for the contractor’s negligence.

A trial judge found the doctrine applied to bar liability against Tyler.

The appeals court agreed, stating that “Tyler's involvement in the task was limited to asking D&D to clean the sump pump and unbolting the lid to allow D&D’s employees access to the sump pump's opening” and that “Tyler did not dictate how the sump pump should be cleaned, and it did not direct any D&D employee to enter it.”

The court also said the mere failure to exercise the power to compel the subcontractor to adopt safer procedures does not, without more, violate any duty owed to the subcontractor's employee.

WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.